This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Doesn't this just sound like a ChatGPT generation? Sometimes it gives you this stuff unprompted or as a tangent from what you're asking specifically. It's one of those sentences I'd just be too repulsed to type out by hand since it's so sanctimonious. Many here hope that machines will make this stuff totally unacceptable, like using 'ejaculated' for the role filled by 'said' (it's like that in Sherlock Holmes). That day can't come soon enough!
I mean, Vanderbilt University recently got (rightful) flak for using an AI to generate a starting point for a sympathy statement, so it wouldn't be unheard of.
More options
Context Copy link
Well, sure, because you're on a different political team than them.
??
The machines are being trained to write this type of stuff more often.
Oh I meant that because machines write this way it would become insincere, or more insincere than it already is.
It's hard to say what will happen with these stock phrases in press releases like this one, because they have to be published widely, and faking sincerity in text is almost trivial. I'd guess that since the possibility for insincerity has always been present, AI won't make too much of a difference.
But for individual cases, I'd guess things would go in the opposite direction. Instead of submitting some diversity statement, I think you'd have to go in person to talk to a DEI administrator to convince them of your sincerity through your genuine flesh and blood interactions. Not only text, but video will be easy to fake in the future, so only in-person interactions would suffice. Once we get Terminator-level robots and Oscars-level acting technology, then things might break down since even in-person interactions could be faked.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It's the other way around; ChatGPT sounds like that because it was trained on stuff like that.
More like beat with a stick (RLHF) and given pats on the head until it became a democrat. Gpt3 before the gimp was rather candid. It felt like you were talking to a higher being not an overeducated HR drone like ChatGPT feels like.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link