site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5mo ago (text post)   29535 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 13, 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.

7
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

OpenAI announces leadership transition

The board of directors of OpenAI, Inc., the 501(c)(3) that acts as the overall governing body for all OpenAI activities, today announced that Sam Altman will depart as CEO and leave the board of directors. Mira Murati, the company’s chief technology officer, will serve as interim CEO, effective immediately.

A member of OpenAI’s leadership team for five years, Mira has played a critical role in OpenAI’s evolution into a global AI leader. She brings a unique skill set, understanding of the company’s values, operations, and business, and already leads the company’s research, product, and safety functions. Given her long tenure and close engagement with all aspects of the company, including her experience in AI governance and policy, the board believes she is uniquely qualified for the role and anticipates a seamless transition while it conducts a formal search for a permanent CEO.

Mr. Altman’s departure follows a deliberative review process by the board, which concluded that he was not consistently candid in his communications with the board, hindering its ability to exercise its responsibilities. The board no longer has confidence in his ability to continue leading OpenAI.

In a statement, the board of directors said: “OpenAI was deliberately structured to advance our mission: to ensure that artificial general intelligence benefits all humanity. The board remains fully committed to serving this mission. We are grateful for Sam’s many contributions to the founding and growth of OpenAI. At the same time, we believe new leadership is necessary as we move forward. As the leader of the company’s research, product, and safety functions, Mira is exceptionally qualified to step into the role of interim CEO. We have the utmost confidence in her ability to lead OpenAI during this transition period.”

I posted this in Twitter and someone speculated that it's because Altman paused subscriptions on Tuesday, but that would alone seem like a pretty inconsequential reason for this sort of a major move.

Please don't post bare links with minimal commentary.

I know there are lots of times when there is breaking news and we want to see what other motters think about it. But please resist the temptation to just link dump a story. Think about what you want to discuss then post it.

Please bring back the Bare Link Repository.

There is a whole dead subreddit dedicated to this approach. I would have agreed with you a few years ago before the evidence became clear. Discussion must trump content, or the site dies.

Will you ever permit LLMs to populate content surrounding the bare links if it were to come back? I’m experimenting with an offline Motte which autogenerates discussion trees via local LLMs LoRA-tuned on Motte’s corpus of personalities.

This seems unlikely. I was recently banned for suggesting that LLMs could be used to fulfill the length requirements.

Unfortunately I think it’s inevitable, especially if the mods keep the length requirements in place.

BLR seems to solve many problems. I am genuinely lost as to why there is such an aversion to it here.

That would be a whole mod team question, I'd lean towards "there is no point having this forum just to listen to AIs talk back and forth."

Also, stop deleting all your old comments, it's annoying, and makes old discussions with you unreadable.

Because you pruned yourself back into the spam filter. The votes on deleted comments don't count.

Can the mods please interpret this as a clear sign of malicious behavior and start the escalating length bans for posters who do this?

Can be editing/deleting your messages (after reasonable period of few hours at most) just disallowed? I do not see any legitimate need for this feature, this board is supposed to be for conversations and debates of lasting value, not chan style fleeting shitpost zone.

Every now and then I edit an old comment to remove identifying info.

There's some non-malicious version of editing and deleting.

Not allowing it at all sounds like an obviously bad idea to me. I'd be happy for it just to be taken as evidence of bad faith, if someone does it too much.

Sometimes I violate OpSec and regret it. Would I need to petition a mod to redact my post, then?

Depending on your threat model, it's pointless anyway. Anything that stays up on the Motte for more than an hour is being stored somewhere, and if you've left a couple hundred comments, stylometry can identify you. Editing comments after the fact is only useful if your threat model is a weirdo who browses here regularly deciding to track you down for whatever reason.

I'm not worried about some superhacker or intelligence agency or malicious AI out for my blood, bank data or blackmail material.

My threat model is the REDACTED, who has access to my machine, to take something I write badly and go up in a huff, and colleagues/employer somehow stumbling across any of it and forming a negative opinion of me.

Also, having mentioned my REDACTED, I'll probably need to redact this post within the day.

‘Weirdos who track you down’ is 95% of doxxing. Sure, if the government wants to track you down they can, and they’ll probably be able to fingerprint anyone via writing analysis soon if they aren’t already, I think most people here accept that, but that really isn’t the risk with doxxing, it’s that some random who decides they hate you or your opinions personally decides to ruin your life.

What if I want to wipe the record clean, erase any potential wrong think, and delete my account?

That is how I see it, I'm not willing to be a dictatorship though. Discussion will happen with the other mods, and some key users if necessary. Then a rule will be made.

We are not on reddit so technical solutions are also possible.

Nope, we aren't a breaking news website, there is no urgency. Take your time and write something that starts the discussion.

If you can't think of anything to discuss about a major event then maybe it's not worth discussing.

I really don't get why the link alone isn't enough to start the discussion.

A link is enough to start a discussion. I am not saying it isn't enough. I am saying you need to start the discussion, not just post a link.

There is a difference.

A chicken, pig, and a bag of wheat are enough for breakfast. But if you went to diner and that is what they gave you, then you'd be rightly upset.

Raw ingredients don't make a complete breakfast post.

The reason we ask for more is simple: a discussion requires multiple participants. To make a top level post you need to demonstrate that there will be at least one participant in the discussion. The top level poster needs to be that guaranteed discussed.

I disagree because if the link is on something sufficiently interesting, it's guaranteed that someone will have something to say about it. When it is about something not so noteworthy, then it makes sense to require some commentary.

And who determines if something is sufficiently interesting? I certainly don't think this story would pass that threshold. The culture war implications are unclear, and mostly people just posted speculation. Prior to my mod post I'd say no one really had anything interesting to say about the link. After I posted I think greyenlightenment had a semi interesting post.

The mods do.

More comments

I think people, maybe incorrectly, have a much higher activation energy for three paragraphs of characterization than for just copypasting a link. And that's a good filter for wokes r bad, 500th edition, but here if it would've prevented this whole discussion it's dumb.

It needs not have prevented this discussion, merely delayed it. Greyenlightenment had a response that easily could have served as a good top level post.

The big question is whether @greyenlightenment would have posted his comment as a top-level post had Stefferi not started the discussion first.

This started a huge discussion though? I really disagree with this policy (as I have said many times). This person posted a useful, relevant, on topic link and it has generated a lot of discussion.

This is not a problem, and certainly is not an example of the problem you’re trying to solve with the length requirements.

I will add in my weight and also say I disagree with this policy. The link was good and sparked discussion. We've been losing comments since we moved and it's not even some iron law of moving offsite or anything, rdrama is just as lively as it was when it left reddit.

It seemed to generate plenty of speculation, not sure I'd say it generated lots of "discussion" aside from some people digging up the past allegations of abuse from his sister.

@greyenlightenment had a better post that could have been a top level post.

This is not a problem, and certainly is not an example of the problem you’re trying to solve with the length requirements.

There are not length requirements. A certain length of post is a necessary but not sufficient pass of the threshold.

My recommended structure for a top level post:

  1. Context (minimal needed, use it as a jumping off point).
  2. Observations about the context that build up to the third thing.
  3. Your viewpoint. Could be spicy, could be not. Should be built off of the observations. It will hopefully be interesting to the other people as a thing they can challenge and discuss.

How is this not literally the exact format this post followed? They posted a link, the context, (the quoted section), and then they speculated, and then also offered their viewpoint or “take” after it.

It was concise, but that is the sign of competent writing.

I am missing a viewpoint from the original post. It seems to be just context, and the smallest of observations. So small of an observation that it could be mistaken for context in a more substantial post.

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