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 -
Finally something that explicitly ties AI into the culture war: Why I HATE A.I. Art - by Vaush
I endorse pretty much all of the points he makes in this video. I do recommend watching the whole thing all the way through, if you have time.
I went into this curious to see exactly what types of arguments he would make, as I've been interested in the relationship between AI progress and the left/right divide. His arguments fall into roughly two groups.
First is the "material impact" arguments - that this will be bad for artists, that you're using their copyrighted work without their permission, that it's not fair to have a machine steal someone's personal style that they worked for years to develop, etc. I certainly feel the force of these arguments, but it's also easy for AI advocates to dismiss them with a simple "cry about it". Jobs getting displaced by technology is nothing new. We can't expect society to defend artists' jobs forever, if they are indeed capable of being easily automated. Critics of AI art need to provide more substantial arguments about why AI art is bad in itself, rather than simply pointing out that it's bad for artists' incomes. Which Vaush does make an attempt at.
The second group of arguments could perhaps be called "deontological arguments" as they go beyond the first-person experiential states of producers and consumers of AI art, and the direct material harm or benefit caused by AI. The main concern here is that we're headed for a future where all media and all human interaction is generated by AI simulations, which would be a hellish dystopia. We don't want things to just feel good - we want to know that there's another conscious entity on the other end of the line.
It's interesting to me how strongly attuned Vaush is to the "spiritual" dimension of this issue, which I would not have expected from an avowed leftist. It's clearly something that bothers him on an emotional level. He goes so far as to say:
and, what was the real money shot for me:
Now, on the one hand, "leftism" and "Marxism" are absolutely massive intellectual traditions with a lot of nuance and disagreement, and I certainly don't expect all leftists to hold the same views on everything. On the other hand, I really do think that what we're seeing now with AI content generation is a natural consequence of the leftist impulse, which has always been focused on the ceaseless improvement and elevation of man in his ascent towards godhood. What do you think "fully automated luxury gay space communism" is supposed to mean? It really does mean fully automated. If everyone is to be a god unto themselves, untrammeled by external constraints, then that also means they have the right to shirk human relationships and form relationships with their AI buddies instead (and also flood the universe with petabytes of AI-generated art). At some point, there seems to be a tension between progress on the one hand and traditional authenticity on the other.
It was especially amusing when he said:
I guess everyone becomes a reactionary at some point - the only thing that differs is how far you have to push them.
I have noticed the analogy, which is part of why I’m slightly surprised that this forum is so pro-AI. I mean, given the LessWrong origins of this forum, it makes sense they’d be pro-AI. But this is a decidedly reactionary slice of that original LW readership. How can the same group of people be so reactionary on so many issues while also supporting the prospect of AI-induced complete social disruption. Yes yes, it doesn’t have to be the same individuals making both types of posts, but still.
I don't think the forum is anti-trans in principle; it's just that almost all trans are diametrically opposed to more core values that this forum holds. Plus the transhumanist roots of this forum are in line with atom-for-atom transness... not surgical imitation. We want the real McCoy!
I don't think this is quite right, actually. People in this forum being "anti-trans" is really only true to the extent that they are against the demands of self-proclaimed pro-trans activists. In terms of the literal meanings of the terms "anti" and "trans," this forum is pretty full of people who aren't anti-trans. Rather, it has to do with opinions specifically about the demands of self-proclaimed pro-trans activists. Obviously this is an easy equivocation to make by accident just because of the literal words involved; my belief is that this type of equivocation is encouraged - and likely even believed in - by the self-proclaimed pro-trans activists; more people believing in the unsupported notion that these activists are speaking on behalf of the actual trans population lends them greater credibility.
Did you miss "don't"? It seems like we agree completely...
No, I think you were incorrect when you wrote "it's just that almost all trans are diametrically opposed to more core values that this forum holds." I don't think it's the case that almost all trans are diametrically opposed to this forum's core values. I think it's the case that almost all trans activists are diametrically opposed to those, and also that trans activists try to give the (unsupported) impression that trans people in general have some meaningful level of agreement with trans activists.
Ah. That might be the case, but I think there's a lot of overlap between trans and trans-activist.
More options
Context Copy link
I have or have had significant personal experiences with a number of transpeople. By and large, the activist trait is the most important one when it has come to personally figuring out if someone's values will align with mine or not (and, separately but related, this forum's core values). All my personal experiences with trans activists have seen them be left-wing and loudly against my values. Also, loudly against the values of this forum, as it's not generally believed outside this space that hateful people should be given a platform and that it's worthwhile to rigorously explore other's ideas.
Is this actually representative of the trans community? Couldn't say. But I can definitely say that every trans activist I've seen has been a censorious progressive, and every non-activist transperson I've dealt with is just... a normal person who happens to be trans and doesn't want to talk about it and is keenly more right-sympathetic, if not an outright right-winger themselves. Often, this left/right, activist/non-activist split also lines up with a doesn't pass/passes one, which I suspect has a lot to do with certain attitudes.
If the values of this forum are about free speech and rational constructive discussion, then why is it dominated by conservatives and reactionaries who don't let left wing comments get high rating, does this mean only right wingers value rational political debate or does it mean that left wingers do not like the way they are treated when they comment on here?
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link