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 -
Is the rapid advancement in Machine Learning good or bad for society?
For the purposes of this comment, I will try to define good as "improving the quality of life for many people without decreasing the quality of life for another similarly sized group" an vice versa.
I enjoy trying to answer this question because the political discourse around it is too new to have widely accepted answers disseminated by the two American political parties being used to signify affiliation like many questions. However, any discussion of whether something is good or bad for society belongs in a Culture War threat because, even here on The Motte, most people will try to reduce every discussion to one along clear conservative/liberal lines because most people here are salty conservatives who were kicked out of reddit by liberals one way or another.
Now on to the question: Maybe the best way to discover if Machine learning is good or bad for society is to say what makes it essentially different from previous computing? The key difference in Machine Learning is that it changes computing from a process where you tell the computer what to do with data, and turns it into a process where you just tell the computer what you want it to be able to do. before machine learning, you would tell the computer specifically how to scan an image and decide if it is a picture of a dog. Whether the computer was good at identifying pictures of dogs relied on how good your instructions were. With machine learning, you give the computer millions of pictures of dogs and tell it to figure out how to determine if there's a dog in a picture.
So what can be essentialized from that difference? Well before Machine Learning, the owners of the biggest computers still had to be clever enough to use them to manipulate data properly, but with Machine Learning, the owners of the biggest computers can now simply specify a goal and get what they want. It seems therefore that Machine Learning will work as a tool for those with more capital to find ways to gain more capital. It will allow people with the money to create companies that can enhance the ability to make decisions purely based on profit potential, and remove the human element even more from the equation.
How about a few examples:
Recently a machine learning model was approved by the FDA to be used to identify cavities on X-rays. Eventually your dental insurance company will require a machine learning model to read your X-rays and report that you need a procedure in order for them to cover treatment from your dentist. The justification will be that the Machine Learning model is more accurate. It probably will be more accurate. Dentists will require subscriptions to a Machine Learning model to accept insurance, and perhaps dental treatment will become more expensive, but maybe not. It's hard to say for sure if this will be a bad or a good thing.
Machine learning models are getting very good at writing human text. This is currently reducing the value of human writers at a quick pace. Presumably with more advanced models, it will replace commercial human writing all together. Every current limitation of the leading natural language models will be removed in time, and they will become objectively superior to human writers. This also might be a good thing, or a bad thing. It's hard to say.
I think it's actually very hard to predict if Machine Learning will be good or bad for society. Certain industries might be disrupted, but the long term effects are hard to predict.
Frankly at this point I'm just riding the tides. Whatever happens, happens. This will be like the fifth once in a generation event I've lived through, and like the 20th doomsday scenario. I don't have the energy to care anymore. I have apocalypse fatigue.
Once you accept that these are forces which you can't individually impact, the path forward becomes pretty clear.
Just set things up to maximize your chances of living to see whatever crazy future we end up with.
And maybe have some fun along the way.
More options
Context Copy link
But there could be a utopia! Unlike Nuclear and other scenarios, I think it's likely this moves us far closer to a utopia, soon.
People thought this about Nuclear and the other ones too if you remember.
There will be no utopia, because utopia is not a thing that exists. Our lives might get better and worse in various ways, but the idea of a perfect society, and by extension of moving towards a perfect society, has always been delusional.
No utopia, just a shifted technological landscape.
Some delusions are worth chasing my friend. Chasing the delusion of truth, intellectual honesty, and rigor led us to the Scientific revolution, which brought us where we are today. Just because you don't think it's likely doesn't mean those seeking utopia are fools.
Utopia doesn't exist the same way any other ideal doesn't exist. Does that mean you shouldn't strive to be kind or love others?
More options
Context Copy link
There could be a utopia but it could only be achieved by either
Changing the human race fundamentally to remove the desire for accomplishment or status
Hiding the true nature of reality and creating a unique simulation for each human that would provide a fulfilling life path for that person
Why do you think this is the case? And what does a 'fundamental' change mean?
The goal of the axial revolution has always been to improve ourselves. We are slowly becoming better, in my opinion. Less violent, more understanding, more focused on technical accomplishment. If we continue on that path and eventually eschew (most) status, is that a fundamental change or an incremental one?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
There could be! And that would be nice! But like with giving in to doom-mongering, I'm also not going to get my hopes up, either. Realistically, whatever's going to happen is going to happen regardless of whether I get hyped up or stressed out about it.
Yeah I try and keep a cool head as well. I'd love to quit my job and party till the singularity comes but it may not be the best idea...
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link