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 -
I wrote a post about de-biasing efforts in machine learning, which got a bit long, so I decided to turn it into an article instead. It's about how corporate anti-bias solutions are mostly only designed to cover their asses, and does nothing to solve the larger (actually important) issue.
(As an aside: does it still count as a "bare link" if I point to my own content, just hosted elsewhere?)
Well yes corporations just want to cover their asses from criticism, but the worst is that the criticism is so powerful that the discussion ends up shallow. I'm so annoyed that we had a cancellation of a language model that produced rap lyrics. FN Meka had a record contract which was later torn up because it was a "appropriator" using words reserved for someone with "lived experiences". It was just reported on and everyone glossed it over and forgot about. I'm like what did just happen? They cancelled a pile of math... There are slightly more deeper philosophical problems with the way it was cancelled. It cuts directly into postmodernism and its issues with treating the inauthentic the same as the authentic. Because at the end of the day the language model is just a mirror of the language used by those with the "lived experiences" and should be understood as such. https://youtube.com/watch?v=vYmfnfljvnM
My instinct is that the rap world would look down on a bunch of geeky mathletes who tried to write rap verses about being hard-ass gangsters regardless of whether they use an AI to do it or just pen and paper.
I looked into the youtube comments of FN Mekas music videos. There I found complaints of "inauthenticity" as in it wasn't very good. Which is not a surprise. The complaints highlighted in media is "robot racism" not that it sucks as rap. https://nypost.com/2022/08/24/capitol-records-severs-ties-with-virtual-rapper-fn-meka-after-outcry/
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Clearly they didn't. They "canceled" actions of people for (to them) socially relevant reasons.
This kind of "they canceled math" reminds me when pirates said that "a number was banned", meaning that the sharing of an encryption key was banned (my point is independent of agreeing with that ban), or "I just used words" or "I just moved a mouse and clicked on things". Or saying "it's just pixels" if you were caught with CP.
(Another somewhat similar trick is "no person is illegal", making it seem as if someone who uses the phrase "illegal immigrant" meant that the person themselves is illegal besides being an immigrant, when clearly it means a person who immigrates illegally. The person isn't illegal, but their actions are. Similarly here, it's not the math that is canceled but an action performed through math.)
It's an annoying rhetorical tool. It's not "just" that, and the fuss isn't about that "just" part but the consequences, the context, the intent, the usage, etc. Everything is, at the end of the day, "just" something. A bomb is just some chemicals, just some molecules. Everything is just a bunch of quarks and electrons and so you can make any action sound absurd.
This one has an obvious full argument that it's short for, basically looking like "child molestation is bad because it (often) directly hurts children; fapping to real CP only indirectly hurts children and fapping to fictional CP doesn't hurt children at all, because the representations of children on a computer screen are not actually children but just nonsentient pixels, so the last in particular shouldn't be subject to the stigma of the first and the second is somewhere in-between". There is definitely some meaning to that word "just".
The copyright one is somewhat-further removed from the full form, which basically looks like "illegalising true and consensual information exchange is an unacceptable compromise of liberty, and copyright near-uniquely does this and indeed almost entirely consists of this". Kind of weaker, though, as it requires a fairly-strong assumption and there's at least one other example of this with pretty-broad societal support (classified information).
Sure, but my point is that saying "It's just a number! That's ridiculous to ban!" gets around the meat of the argument (any digital information can be encoded in binary and therefore as a number). It's lazy. Argue the substance.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
One can be annoyed at reductionism but when people decry the object for itself, it's no longer reductionism.
"Guns aren't banned, only possessing guns is banned" is about as stupid as the converse.
The people who don't like this AI don't like it for essential reasons, not because of actions taken with it.
Also, regarding the gun example:
Stupid arguments: "guns aren't banned, just possessing guns is banned". "Banning guns makes no sense, guns are just molecules and atoms arranged in a certain configuration! You can't ban physical reality!"
Sensible arguments: "Guns should be banned because they are dangerous and people may accidentally fire them or shoot someone in the heat of the moment", "Guns should be allowed because if criminals know that people have guns, they won't break into people's homes and this makes life safer and we can all sleep better."
These are just examples.
More options
Context Copy link
I wonder if they would be okay with it if it (the rapper AI) was operated by black people. If yes, then it's not merely about the AI as an object or the math. You have to argue (and I don't think it's hard) that blacks don't have a monopoly on rap, it's not enough to say "hurr durr it's just math".
So I didn't pay much attention to this controversy, mostly out of lack of interest, but also partly out of unfortunate paucity of coverage, but I think the main issue the "cancelers" had with the AI was that it was generating lyrics implying some sort of personal struggle as a black man facing police brutality, and also possibly using certain slurs that are common in rap songs produced by black people. I'm not sure if the "cancelers" would be okay with the AI if it had been operated by black people, or if they would require that the AI also be written by black people. And if the latter, does it have to be written from scratch with no use of, say, open source code created by white or Asian researchers?
Or would even that not be enough, and the mere fact that it's a computer generating these lyrics instead of a human brain belonging to a black man who had actually suffered police brutality generating them is a problem? If so, it seems reasonable to characterize that as people "canceling a pile of math;" however, it's not clear to me that this is so.
I see it totally opposite. What they are doing is precisely not about canceling the math but the social context, the use. That people made a black man imitator robot, which they consider some kind of blasphemy/taboo, like depicting the prophet for Muslims or how some tribes don't want to be photographed. It's a sacred thing for them. Just like putting some fancy Native American headdress onto some random robot or scarecrow would probably be.
You can argue against that view and that it's bad to consider such things sacred. But it's strawmanning them to pretend that they are simply arbitrarily canceling a bunch of math. They are canceling the building of software tools that impersonate black rappers, as a legitimate endeavor out of quasi religious reasons.
No, that's not a strawman, that's a description. By your reasoning, the concept of "canceling a bunch of math" simply doesn't seem to exist; if I decided that "2+2=4" is blasphemous and demanded that all books and teachers making such statements be "canceled," I wouldn't be "canceling a bunch of math," but rather, say, "canceling the expression of certain mathematical equations out of quasi religious reasons." Mathematical equations and algorithms - whether they state some arithmetic fact or they allow the creation of some string of letters that some people find meaningful - aren't just lying around for people to discover; they are expressed and created by humans. Objecting to people expressing and creating such things is exactly what is described when something is described as "canceling a bunch of math."
If I oppose you shooting a bunch of cannon balls at my house, I'm not canceling ballistics, I'm canceling your use of ballistics in this particular way.
"Cancelling" math would be something like what the Pythagoreans did (though cancel isn't the best verb) when trying to suppress the proof/discovery that root 2 isn't rational (please let's not get bogged down in the historicity of my characterization of this particular example, it's an analogy). To consider mathematical facts themselves as dangerous or harmful. These people didn't cancel machine learning or convergence proofs or gradient descent. They cancelled an application of machine learning. If I say that a Chinese style social credit system or all encompassing surveillance infrastructure are bad or should not be implemented, I'm not cancelling the math. Just the application area.
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
You are annoyed at the rhetoric of my attempt of being succinct. So let me expand on that. Yes they "cancelled" actions of a group of people that own and operate a language model that was trained on existing rap lyrics. My statement was reduction on that. The thing that I'm trying to convey here is that the discussion with the ethics around input and output AI models in general is very shallow. The discussions revolve around harm caused by unpredictable output which have no actual consequence other than making someone feel bad over a generated content. Image or lyric...
The ethics discussion should be deeper than social panics du jour. It shouldn't be ethical for example to use machine learning algorithms to nudge behavior of people. e.g. presenting alcohol ads to people that has a signal in their online behavior that they are prone to become alcoholics. The other example which I saw recently on a friends youtube, ads for investment scams when he searches for how to invest in stocks(since he most likely don't have requisite knowledge to sniff out scams). Those AI applications have the potential to ruin someones life as opposed to n-word by algorithm or violent nightmare fuel from an AI painter.
Sure, this is a much better argument because now you have to address the substance of who (or what, if an AI isn't a who) is allowed to utter the n-word and whether non-blacks can utter it indirectly through the operation of AI systems or whether it causes "harm" or not.
Yes and what is the difference between an AI and CD recording? Predictability? Determinism? Am I allowed as a non-black operate a CD-player with rap album in it? To sample it and create a new piece of art?
All these questions because some people decided to equate the copy with the original. AI just mimics reality but it isn’t reality.
Try blasting the song "Nigga Nigga Nigga" as a white guy next to some wokes. I guess they'd disapprove.
(also CDs are grandfathered in, their analog predecessors were made much earlier than the current progressive morals around race).
What happens if the Spotify algorithm recommends and blasts a song with "Nigga Nigga Nigga" next to some wokes? Is that racist? Do I have an argument that "the algorithm" did it?
I could guess that if a spotify recommendation played "Gary Barts Ntu Troop - Uhuru Sasa" and "Gil Scott Heron - The revolution will not be televised" it would be deemed as appropriation.
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