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 -
OpenAI announces leadership transition
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.
OpenAI's structure is a little convoluted, https://openai.com/our-structure
It's a 501c3 that owns a for-profit company. They are trying to walk a tightrope to avoid falling into thorny legal issues.
It would be very easy for Altman to do something that created legal issues he didn't expect. Moving resources between the orgs could be a problem. Doing something as simple as telling a few of the non-profit employees to help out the engineers at the for profit company is a legal minefield.
There's also another issue. 501c3s are supposed to be run in the ideal Moldbug fashion. The CEO is a local monarch and the board measures his performance and can fire him if they aren't satisfied.
However the board sometimes let power go to their heads and decide they should be running things. They fire the CEO because he's getting the glory and not doing what they say.
I am always wary of non-profits. It seems like a corporate structure that invites corruption. A for-profit company has an objective goal and shareholders it is accountable to. A non-profit with a self-perpetuating board does not.
The board members have a lot of power and are accountable only to each other. The incentive is for them to subvert the stated goals of the organization for their own benefit.
Benefiting monetarily may be difficult, but converting their power into less tangible benefits is not, especially when the goal of the non-profit is vaguely defined.
None of the board members' positions is secure. They can be voted out at any time by the other board members. Anyone brought in to support a faction can betray the other members of the faction. New factions can emerge. This all discourages long term goals. The incentive is to get in, use internal politics to gain power, and then exploit that power for personal or ideological benefit while it lasts.
I agree with this, but also remember the original mission. OpenAI got it's initial dose of mind-share, talent and OPM because it was supposed to save the world from centralising AI in the hands of a winner-take-all company.
IMHO that was a dumb strategy for achieving a valid goal from the beginning, but a straight-out for-profit company would have been completely opposite to the mission.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link