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 -
No, you're going to die because of a preference to die under the wheels of a pothead scrolling their phone, a drunk that doesn't like cyclists, or just regular old human error instead. Of course, you probably won't wind up dying in any of these ways, but the obvious question is which policy gives you lower odds of dying rather than whether a system can prevent all errors under all circumstances.
In my experience, yes, it has. I can frequently resolve problems using automated systems that are easier and faster to use than working with humans. For example, if my flight can't take off due to weather and I'm going to miss my connection, I can hop on my phone and the system will have suggested options for me to switch to; I can see the options myself and select which one is best for my travel preferences. A human could do that too, but they have to do it for every individual trying to make that connection, which results in a big line. If I have anything weird that I'd prefer, I have to explain it rather than just pressing the buttons.
On the flip side of things, my experience with "let me talk to a damn human" is that it's usually someone looking for some sort of special favor that's outside of policy and may or may not be possible. I have repeatedly experienced this mentality from people that I've worked with in customer service that really want to get on the phone to explain their situation, when I actually don't care what their reasons are and I'm just going to reiterate that the policy is what it is, I will not be giving you anything free or making exceptions because you really want them.
So yeah, on net, I would consider automated solutions to have sharply improved my experience as both a customer and service provider.
Will they jail the reckless CEO the same way as a reckless pothead driver when their car kills someone (or 10/100/1000 someones)?
More options
Context Copy link
The long and short of it with AVs is that driving is one of my main sources of relaxation and pleasure, and so I'll only give up my manual car when you pry it out of my cold dead hands. I could take a more "objective" view of the minutiae of AV policy if I was pressed to. But I'm not particularly interested in doing so.
I was definitely subconsciously reaching for this notion when I brought up customer service. Thank you for articulating it for me.
Society should be set up in such a way that special favors are possible. It should be malleable, pliable, it should admit of edge cases and exceptions. It should be conceivable that you can lean on a human's empathy or frailty or inadequacies in order to get things done. That's what a human society looks like.
To be sure, the failure modes of such a style of operation when taken to excess are well understood. But it's still preferable to the alternative of a fully mechanized and perfectly efficient society, with all its cold digital exactitude. I don't want every public and private institution to operate like Google and Youtube - no way to talk to a human, no edges or seams, solid, impenetrable, immovable. Do you want your employer to operate that way? Or the criminal justice system? Will JudgeGPT be susceptible to the eleven magic words? Let's hope he has a particularly wise philosopher-king in charge of his alignment and RLHF.
You want it both ways then man. You can't have a society that does things correctly instead of good enough but is also malleable enough to allow for people to make special accommodations for you - special accommodations are not correct. I think what you are asking for is something a lot of people want - it's definitely something I'd like - a return to the society of the past where things were basically correct, but the human factor meant a savvy operator could extract accommodations, because you are a savvy operator. But we can't have that, because we already taught everyone to be a savvy operator. We poisoned the well ourselves with our savvy operations.
Au contraire.
A computer system is not a work of art; a work of art is not a human individual; and a human individual is not society as a whole. Things that are distinct should be judged by their own distinct standards that are proper to them. A standard of correctness that applies to one type of thing may not apply to another type; indeed, the entire notion of correctness may be appropriate to one category but actively detrimental to another.
Not that I have any particular qualms about contradicting myself anyway. Contradiction bears witness to the life of thought.
I want what I want, based on my judgment of what is good and proper. It's no skin off my back if I "can't have it".
Sorry, I didn't explain myself well enough, I'll try again.
It's up for debate because of your contradictions. The tech ceo who thinks being cool is more important than superhumanly safe got there because he's a savvy operator. Savvy operating is cool. He doesn't exist in the world where you can't get special exceptions, because in that world he's not a ceo, he's in prison for fraud or malpractice or the like. But in a world where you can game human foibles to your own advantage, every human foible will be gamed.
I don't understand what you mean, if you can't have what you want isn't that exactly skin off your back? Or is it just the wanting that gets your motor going?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
They operate that way because of some SCOTUS decisions on mandatory arbitrage. In EU where those parts of the contracts are void - they are a bit more responding.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link