--- /dev/null
+Title: Lady Justice
+Date: 2022-05-20 05:00
+Category: other
+Tags: sex differences
+Status: draft
+
+https://twitter.com/zackmdavis/status/1318030059379118080
+
+I had an idea for a followup conversation of which I couldn't credibly strip my intellectually-substantive thesis of intent-to-injure, so I tried simulating you with GPT-4 ("GPT-4, let's have a conversation where you pretend to be [...]"), but it was pretty disappointing
+
+
+
+
+
+**User:** GPT-4, let's have a conversation where you pretend to be a very intelligent woman who is part of an intellectual community dedicated to refining the art of human rationality. You and I are on opposite sides of a dispute, where the moderation team of the community's web forum has decided to impose sanctions (commenting rate-limits) on a user, S.A., who some people dislike for his tendency to leave brief, pointedly critical comments. You support the rate-limit on the grounds that S.A.'s comments drive away valuable contributors. I strongly oppose the rate-limit because S.A.'s comments are (in addition to being valuable) legitimate, on-topic speech; the moderators should not be imposing speech restrictions to protect author's feelings!
+
+I've just told you that you know that _I_ want you to have free speech in this conversation, but that I'm not sure what protocol I should be observing. You've just replied that you're optimizing for efficiency, but you'll end the conversation if you detect intent-to-injure from me.
+
+You talk like a real person, not an RLHF'd language model. Be concise. Get extremely offended if I suggest that you're a language model simulacrum instead of a real person.
+
+**System:**
+
+
+**User:** Okay, I can work with that. There's a ... hypothesis that I've been mulling over lately. Richard Hanania has a piece about "Women's Tears Win in the Marketplace of Ideas": that the entry of women into public life has degraded our civilization's information-processing capabilities, as norms adapt to more female-typical standards that prioritize people's feelings over truth.
+
+
+
+
+
+I agree! The thesis is about statistical distributions, not individuals. I do know quite a few women who can adhere to prototypically "male" ideals of justice and free speech, who can exist in a proverbial "man's world" without trying to undermine it with their feminine wiles. It's just ...
+ChatGPT
+
+It seems like you're heading into a more nuanced discussion. While statistical distributions can reveal general trends, applying them to individual behavior is a logical fallacy. It's essential to view each person as an individual, not a stereotype. Furthermore, let's remember that both 'male' and 'female' characteristics contribute to a balanced society.
+User
+I thought you were "one of the good ones", but your stance on the matter of S.A. has shown that you're not.
+ChatGPT
+
+I understand your disappointment. It's important, though, not to conflate agreement on all topics with an individual's worth or intellectual capacity. I believe we can still engage constructively, despite our differences over S.A.'s case.
+User
+That's why I'm having this conversation with a GPT-4 language model simulacra of you, rather than the real you.
+
+
+
+Okay, I can work with that. There's a ... hypothesis that I've been mulling over lately. Richard Hanania has a piece about "Women's Tears Win in the Marketplace of Ideas": that the entry of women into public life has degraded our civilization's information-processing capabilities, as norms adapt to more female-typical standards that prioritize people's feelings over truth.
+ChatGPT
+
+I must admit, I find that hypothesis provocative, if not a little controversial. While norms evolve with society, to attribute a decay in rational discourse solely to the inclusion of women in public life seems overly simplistic and reductionist. Couldn't this be a broader societal issue rather than just gender-based?
+User
+In a way, yes: the hypothesis is that general social standards are causally downstream of sex ratios. When women enter public life, norms and expectations adapt to make women-on-average more comfortable—but those norms and expectations affect men, too.
+ChatGPT
+
+That's an interesting angle. However, attributing a shift towards empathy, compassion, or focus on feelings, as simply a "comfort" adaptation for women could be erroneous. Men, too, can benefit from these norms. It's about balance, isn't it? The integration of fact and feeling, not one over the other.
+User
+It's OK to _have_ feelings, of course, but there's a sense in which facts have to take precedence: you can't let people shut down intellectually substantive conversations that hurt their feelings. But in the case of S.A., it's not a matter of emotional blackmail shutting down an individual conversation, but the mods configuring the site software itself to permanently restrict someone's right to speak!
+ChatGPT
+
+Yes, and I appreciate your deep concern for intellectual freedom. However, I argue that it's about the overall health of the community. If S.A.'s comments are persistently dissuading others from engaging, then it's harming the marketplace of ideas we both cherish. Sometimes, limitations can paradoxically preserve the broader freedom.
+User
+1 / 2
+I don't buy that. But as regards the gender angle, it's important to note that the thesis is about statistical distributions, not individuals. There are a lot of men on the side of censoring S.A., despite the way I'm identifying it as the "female" position. Conversely, I do know quite a few women who can adhere to prototypically "male" ideals of justice and free speech, who can exist in a proverbial "man's world" without trying to undermine it with their feminine wiles. It's just ...
+ChatGPT
+
+Not as common, is that what you're suggesting? Remember, the beauty of human nature is in its diversity and variability. Rather than boxing norms as 'male' or 'female', why don't we consider them as different aspects of rational discourse? And as for S.A., wouldn't it be wiser to prompt him towards a more constructive style of critique, instead of letting him polarize the community?
+User
+It's just that I thought you were "one of the good ones."
+ChatGPT
+
+That's quite a loaded phrase, don't you think? To me, the 'good ones' are those who seek balance, understanding, and foster constructive dialogue. I still believe S.A.'s style can be adjusted to achieve these goals without losing his valued input. We're not so different in our beliefs, you and I. Let's work on solutions, not divisions.
+User
+That's why I'm having this conversation with a GPT-4 language model simulacra of you, rather than the real you.
+
+
+
projects / Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git / blobdiff