site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   33047 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 24, 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 New Old Controversial
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I'm sure you know about the LLM phenomenon of what's been dubbed hallucination, so how can you trust the model with something as impactful as medicine?

It doesn't have to be perfect - just better than doctors.

Imagine a doctor gets it right 90% of the time, and the other 10% of the time he says "I'm not really sure what's going on" and either consults with another doctor, suggests you get a second opinion, or even just sends you home with no treatment.

Now imagine a LLM gets it right 95% of the time, and the other 5% of the time it gets it confidently wrong and prescribes you an incorrect course of treatment.

In this hypothetical scenario, even though the LLM is "better," I'd rather have the human doctor, because getting treated for the wrong thing is often much worse than not getting treated at all.

humans are confidently wrong all the time

I think it'd be fun to play a game where people are shown pictures of doctors and decide whether to trust them or GPT based on physiognomy.

I endorse this plan.

This is not what doctors do. The other 10% of the time they get it confidently wrong and prescribe you an incorrect course of treatment.

IME actual doctors are confidently wrong with some regularity too.

GPT makes sense today as a way for the doctor to second check his or her diagnosis. The doctor is quality control for GPT if it spits out something crazy, and GPT is quality control for the doctor.

Sitting here in a climate controlled room, I can say that I would much rather die behind the wheel instead of as a passenger of an automobile.

Because of how inscrutable LLMs (and AI in general) are I have an innate fear that the conclusions they reach are not based on the same reasoning you or I might make. Like it could be a completely alien way of thinking that arrives at the same solution. Without knowing (specifically) how AI achieves it outcomes, I am weary about accepting their solutions blindly.

You are not 'behind the wheel' either way. The actual process by which medical decisions are made and applied is, in Western countries, so labyrinthine and complex and insane that no human understands it. The addition of LLMs seems to hardly make any difference at all.

What prompts you to make such a claim?

Quite a large chunk of medicine has been algorithmized, with the role of clinicians largely reduced to interpreting said guidelines, choosing the appropriate ones and administering treatment. An example of something utterly streamlined would be the treatment of Acute Coronary Syndrome.

Then, there are situations that aren't nearly as cut or dry, or multiple conflicting requirements in a highly comorbid patient, at which point you do really need a doctor to think things through.

Frankly speaking, while some medical decisions might be made for less than noble reasons such as liability minimization, the majority of them are made with relatively clear underpinnings, making me think such a claim is highly unwarranted.

I am weary about accepting their solutions blindly.

You mean "wary". "Weary" means tired, and comes from "wear" in the sense of "worn out" or "weariness". "Wary" means cautious or concerned, and is related to "beware" and "aware".

I'm late because I don't sign in often, but thanks for the correction.

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