I guess the reason I’m dismissive of culture war is that I see combative discourse as maladaptive and self-refuting, and hot combative discourse refutes itself especially quickly. The resilience of the pattern seems like an illusion to me.
I agree that combative discourse is maladaptive, but I think they’d say a similar thing calmly if calm and their words were not subject to the ire-seeking drip of the twitter (recommender×community). It may in fact change the semantics of what they say somewhat but I would bet against it being primarily vitriol-induced reasoning. To be clear, I would not call the culture war “hot” at this time, but it does seem at risk of becoming that way any month now, and I’m hopeful it can cool down without becoming hot. (to be clearer, hot would mean it became an actual civil war. I suppose some would argue it already has done that, but I don’t think the scale is there.)
I didn’t mean that by hot, I guess I meant direct engagement (in words) rather than snide jabs from a distance. The idea of a violent culture war is somewhat foreign to me, I guess I thought the definition of culture war was war through strategic manipulation or transmission of culture. (if you meant wars over culture, or between cultures, I think that’s just regular war?)
And in this sense it’s clear why this is ridiculous: I don’t want to adhere to a culture that’s been turned into a weapon, no one does.
yeah, makes sense. my point was mainly to bring up that the level of anger behind these disagreements is, in some contexts, enough that I’d be unsurprised if it goes hot, and so, people having a warlike stance about considerations regarding whether AIs get rights seems unsurprising, if quite concerning. it seems to me that right now the risk is primarily from inadvertent escalation in in-person interactions of people open-carrying weapons; ie, two mistakes at once, one from each side of an angry disagreement, each side taking half a step towards violence.
I guess the reason I’m dismissive of culture war is that I see combative discourse as maladaptive and self-refuting, and hot combative discourse refutes itself especially quickly. The resilience of the pattern seems like an illusion to me.
I agree that combative discourse is maladaptive, but I think they’d say a similar thing calmly if calm and their words were not subject to the ire-seeking drip of the twitter (recommender×community). It may in fact change the semantics of what they say somewhat but I would bet against it being primarily vitriol-induced reasoning. To be clear, I would not call the culture war “hot” at this time, but it does seem at risk of becoming that way any month now, and I’m hopeful it can cool down without becoming hot. (to be clearer, hot would mean it became an actual civil war. I suppose some would argue it already has done that, but I don’t think the scale is there.)
I didn’t mean that by hot, I guess I meant direct engagement (in words) rather than snide jabs from a distance. The idea of a violent culture war is somewhat foreign to me, I guess I thought the definition of culture war was war through strategic manipulation or transmission of culture. (if you meant wars over culture, or between cultures, I think that’s just regular war?)
And in this sense it’s clear why this is ridiculous: I don’t want to adhere to a culture that’s been turned into a weapon, no one does.
yeah, makes sense. my point was mainly to bring up that the level of anger behind these disagreements is, in some contexts, enough that I’d be unsurprised if it goes hot, and so, people having a warlike stance about considerations regarding whether AIs get rights seems unsurprising, if quite concerning. it seems to me that right now the risk is primarily from inadvertent escalation in in-person interactions of people open-carrying weapons; ie, two mistakes at once, one from each side of an angry disagreement, each side taking half a step towards violence.