site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   38051 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 27, 2023

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.

11
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Was a bit surprised to see this hadn't been posted yet, but yesterday Yudkowsky wrote an op-ed in TIME magazine where he describes the kind of regime that he believes would be necessary to throttle AI progress:

https://archive.is/A1u57

Some choice excerpts:

Many researchers working on these systems think that we’re plunging toward a catastrophe, with more of them daring to say it in private than in public; but they think that they can’t unilaterally stop the forward plunge, that others will go on even if they personally quit their jobs. And so they all think they might as well keep going. This is a stupid state of affairs, and an undignified way for Earth to die, and the rest of humanity ought to step in at this point and help the industry solve its collective action problem.

The moratorium on new large training runs needs to be indefinite and worldwide. There can be no exceptions, including for governments or militaries. If the policy starts with the U.S., then China needs to see that the U.S. is not seeking an advantage but rather trying to prevent a horrifically dangerous technology which can have no true owner and which will kill everyone in the U.S. and in China and on Earth. If I had infinite freedom to write laws, I might carve out a single exception for AIs being trained solely to solve problems in biology and biotechnology, not trained on text from the internet, and not to the level where they start talking or planning; but if that was remotely complicating the issue I would immediately jettison that proposal and say to just shut it all down.

Shut down all the large GPU clusters (the large computer farms where the most powerful AIs are refined). Shut down all the large training runs. Put a ceiling on how much computing power anyone is allowed to use in training an AI system, and move it downward over the coming years to compensate for more efficient training algorithms. No exceptions for anyone, including governments and militaries. Make immediate multinational agreements to prevent the prohibited activities from moving elsewhere. Track all GPUs sold. If intelligence says that a country outside the agreement is building a GPU cluster, be less scared of a shooting conflict between nations than of the moratorium being violated; be willing to destroy a rogue datacenter by airstrike.

if its presence in the CW thread needs justifying, well, it's published in a major magazine and the kinds of policy proposals set forth would certainly ignite heated political debate were they ever to be seriously considered.

"Yudkowsky airstrike threshold" has already become a minor meme on rat and AI twitter.

It's not possible without a world state with global hegemony. If China claims their fancy new datacenter is REALLY just for the tracking of political dissidents and their social credit scores and is totally not running an AI, what is an anti-AI US going to do about it?

China

Since I probably won't get a better chance to bring this up: there's something I don't understand about the China fearmongering.

The basic argument for why AI is a good thing is that it will lead to the singularity. Post-scarcity future, incredible scientific development, transhumanism and the realization of human potential, and so on and so forth. Implicit in this argument seems to be the premise that, if we get a good outcome with a benevolent aligned AI, then the singularity will be a good thing for all humans. I've never seen it suggested that any individual or group in particular has anything to fear. It's implied that the benefits of the singularity will be relatively evenly distributed.

If that's the case, and AI is going to lead us to a utopia... why does it matter if China gets there first? The benevolent robot god is still going to lead humanity to the land of milk and honey either way, regardless of whether it happens to be built in the US or China, so why does it matter if China eclipses the US in AI development?

Or is the singularity not actually going to be evenly distributed? If China builds ASI first, are they just going to genocide the rest of the world outside of China, and then have fun until the heat death of the universe with the robot god? Why restrict ourselves to just analyzing things at the country level? Shouldn't we be equally worried about Sam Altman genociding everyone he doesn't like if OpenAI are the first ones to get to ASI? I don't know what the sequence of events is supposed to look like here.

The constant refrains of "we can't fall behind China" make AI sound a lot closer to a conventional weapon of war, rather than the pure unadulterated good that AI advocates want to present it as, which is all the more reason that it should be tightly regulated, in a proper international framework.

I also find the "WHAT IF CHINA/RUSSIA/ETC. GET THERE FIRST?" arguments extremely silly.

With a the exception of a tiny number of particularly unhinged sadistic psychopaths (the number is probably roughly epsilon), the vast vast majority of people are going to press the "create paradise" button not something so parochial as the "make my country hegemonic forever" or the "kill all the ethnic group I don't like" button. Even people who are, right now, merciless hardnosed Machiavellians would press the paradise button since they could do so without any trade-off for themselves or their in-group.

No, I'm pretty sure that if Putin didn't make Russia into anything more than a shithole for his cronies to feed on during a whole generation of his uninterrupted power, he also won't create a paradise with an AGI button. This is a genuine value difference. Some people don't value goodness, except for themselves and their loved ones.

And I think most machiavellians of Putin's caliber are not much better.

particularly unhinged sadistic psychopaths (the number is probably roughly epsilon)

«About 1.2% of U.S. adult men and 0.3% to 0.7% of U.S. adult women are considered to have clinically significant levels of psychopathic traits».

he also won't create a paradise with an AGI button.

You sure? It's not like he'd have anything to lose. Creating a paradise for everyone wouldn't detract from the slice of paradise available to Putin and his buddies. Would he really decline out of sheer spite?

«About 1.2% of U.S. adult men and 0.3% to 0.7% of U.S. adult women are considered to have clinically significant levels of psychopathic traits».

But it has to be a special kind of psychopath. Psychopathy only implies a lack of empathy and an antisocial personality. Such a person might deny paradise for others for personal gain, but they would have no reason to do so out of sheer spite, unless they were also particularly sadistic psychopaths.

Yes I'm sure. Technically it would incur some opportunity cost (that most would say a singleton should ignore, although I'd argue that an ambitious singleton may still find the cost intolerable). More importantly he doesn't seem to be able to contemplate such relationships. He's not just a Machiavellian psychopath but, first and foremost, a rat, suspicious and hateful of others. It's not only spite, it's a hard prior: sharing with people not in your family (or mafia) is expensive and gives them dangerous capabilities to harm you.

Real people are not rational economic agents – not only in the positive sense (having morals) or neutral sense (having cognitive biases and weird beliefs), but negatively too (willing to do net-negative things for no personal gain). He would not reason «hurr durr I'm evil I will crush those peasants even though it provides me no benefit» – he'd a priori distrust and reject the analysis that says that sharing paradise with peasants is cost-free. They could always revolt or something, and they'll be eating his resources, resources he could put to better use… It's just unpleasant. And this is a not so rare an attitude. Imagine the most stiff-necked, work-obsessed American Puritan from this forum, looking at junkies at the streets of SF. This is the merest shade of the contempt one can feel for non-productive people.

This is not purely hypothetical. Just one example: Russia (pop. 147m including Crimea) has 17 million square kilometers of territory. Much of that, even livable parts, is very sparsely used or effectively uninhabited. Once, there was an initiative to stimulate economic activity and improve the real estate situation etc. with granting people large plots of land. By the time it was approved, it was downscaled to no more than 1 hectare (0.01 sq. km) per applicant on the Far East (area ≈7 million, pop. ≈8 million and falling), located at least 10 km away from towns over 50k and 20 km away from towns of 300+k, so effectively in wild boreal forest, in groups no more than 10 people (so, you are capped at 0.1 km^2 for your project), and with certain onerous rules of use (to begin with, you have to prove you're developing it over the first 5 years, lest it be taken away, and making it your actual property is not straightforward). Russian Far East… isn't very paradisiacal. It was not just affordable but very lucrative for them to offer Russians better terms. Still they didn't, so basically nobody bothered with the program. Lose-lose. (Hilariously, they've dedicated over 1.4m kilometers in the first round of the project – a hectare per Russian).

(At the same time, entire swathes of the region are leased for pittance to China.)

Speaking of paradise, Krylov:

…But Russia had no overseas colonies and did not even dream of them. Moreover, when enterprising Russians (usually against the wishes of the Russian government) tried to settle somewhere across the sea, the Russian government firmly suppressed their impulse. Alaska was sold to the Americans for a pittance. Specifically, for $7.2 million, the equivalent of $104 million today. That is, Alaska was sold for less than five dollars per square kilometer. The price of the transaction included all the movable and immovable property located in Alaska. The payment was not made in gold, but in non-cash dollars. Whether this money was received by the Russian government is not known - [it seems not] (http://www.opoccuu.com/alyaska.htm). And, of course, the board of the Russian-American Company knew nothing of the government's preparations to sell Alaska: the deal was being prepared in secret.

Again: five dollars per square kilometer is the red price of "territorial integrity."

It is clear that Russian settlements in California were, as they say now, " wrapped up", and the Russian-American Company - the same one which sponsored the Krusenstern - was liquidated.

However, one could at least say that Russia was desperately afraid of the mighty America, and that Alaska was "so empty and cold". But when the naive Miklukho-Maklai suggested to Alexander III that he create a "free Russian colony" (as opposed to Germany) in New Guinea, he was kicked out of the Czar's office with such force that he landed in Australia. In Sydney he settled more than fine, but returned to Russia and again came out with the same proposal at the highest level - with the same result.

This has always been the case. All proposals of Russian enthusiasts on the topic of development of any lands far removed from the motherland were met with an absolutely rigid "no". Russia, represented by its highest leadership, shoved away any overseas possessions. On the other hand, enormous efforts and funds were poured into Poland, Finland, and Georgia. These «extraordinarily valuable» acquisitions cost Russia very dearly, and in all senses. So much effort, life and resources were put into fiddling with the Poles and Chukonka people that it would have been enough for a full-fledged colonial expansion.

There can only be one reason for such a decisive rejection of the Paradise Islands. Fear. A conscious and clear fear of the Russian government that the paradise islands will have to be populated by Russians. Which may subsequently sever ties with the empire and create at least a small, but their own state. Which could, in turn, serve as an "embarrassing example" for the rest.

Do you think this psychology allows for your do-gooder decisionmaking?

I also recommend watching Expelled from Paradise on a similar topic.

This comment has made me think a bit harder about my assumptions. Perhaps such a spiteful disposition is more common than I had previously believed.

Where the hell does this distrust of breakaways come from? Has it really always been this way with Russians, or is this more an occasional tendency that sometimes flares up to imperial degrees?

Once, there was an initiative to stimulate economic activity and improve the real estate situation etc. with granting people large plots of land. By the time it was approved, it was downscaled to no more than 1 hectare (0.01 sq. km) per applicant on the Far East (area ≈7 million, pop. ≈8 million and falling), located at least 10 km away from towns over 50k and 20 km away from towns of 300+k, so effectively in wild boreal forest, in groups no more than 10 people (so, you are capped at 0.1 km^2 for your project), and with certain onerous rules of use (to begin with, you have to prove you're developing it over the first 5 years, lest it be taken away, and making it your actual property is not straightforward).

In comparison, Canada gave out 160 acres (65 ha) of land per household via its Dominion Lands Act, out of which you had to cultivate a quarter and build a permanent dwelling on it in three years. That's sixteen times more land if you use a replacement-level family of four as your benchmark. And you could double your homestead after you improved your original plot enough, giving you 320 acres (130 ha). They also had an exclusion zone around railways, but realized it made the program much less attractive and got rid of it.

4401,2 thousand ha of farmland lay fallow in Russia in 2020. That's 27 507 Canadian-style plots they could have given away, about half of them in praire-like conditions of Siberia. What's worse, there was 36256,3 ha of farmland that was technically not fallow but wasn't worked by its owners. I could buy 3200 ha of farmland in Hakassija for the price of a gaming PC if I wanted, why would I ever be interested in a single hectare in the middle of nowhere?

I could buy 3200 ha of farmland in Hakassija for the price of a gaming PC if I wanted

What's the catch ? Climate's not good for farming there ?

More comments

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats