Continuing the discussion <grin> with Glen
Relying on Urban Dictionary to measure the quality of snark is like consulting
a bumper sticker for philosophical insights—effective only if the goal is
surface-level critique. The irony, of course, is using a crowd-sourced
definition to attack the voice of a steelman argument, which was explicitly
crafted to counter the premise, not perform for applause. Snark, when done
well, carries weight by illuminating something deeper, not by dismissing depth
for style points. If the goal is truly to stab, perhaps the target should be
the argument’s flaws, not the delivery mechanism.
On Tue, Jan 28, 2025, 10:51 AM glen <geprope...@gmail.com
<mailto:geprope...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Ugh. Even it's snark is pedestrian. I like this definition of "snark" from
the UD:
"verbal ingenuineness that is brief, subtle, yet quite stabbing. snark is often
marked by deep creativity & use of psychological attack. It employs coldbloodedness and
is best served unprovoked. Snark can contain hidden complimentary meaning under a mean face,
but it hurts more than it strengthens."
On 1/28/25 9:24 AM, Stephen Guerin wrote:
> Prompt: steelman an argument that challenges the premise of my prompt on
political violence. Audience FRIAM group email list. Snarky tone.
>
> Oh, so corruption and illegitimacy are supposed to be the magical catalysts for political
violence? That’s an adorably tidy theory. The reality is messier—violence needs a potent brew of
economic collapse, inequality, and sometimes foreign meddling, not just a "bad guy" in
charge. Plenty of corrupt regimes limp along peacefully with patronage networks and repression, while
their citizens begrudgingly prioritize stability over idealistic notions of "legitimacy."
And let’s not pretend legitimacy is some universal standard—what’s corrupt to you might be perfectly
fine to someone else (hello, cultural relativity). Besides, history is packed with examples of
violence against perfectly legitimate leaders because deeper societal fractures were the real issue.
So yeah, blaming political violence on corrupt leaders? Cute, but maybe think bigger.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2025, 9:01 AM steve smith <sasm...@swcp.com <mailto:sasm...@swcp.com>
<mailto:sasm...@swcp.com <mailto:sasm...@swcp.com>>> wrote:
>
> Glen -
>
> I have to agree with you on your rant. Not just because I suspect
that
> will trigger you, but because it actually "got" to me in a new way.
>
> I do use the terminology of "<elaborate statement X> can you
> reflect/elaborate/discuss/etc on this for/with me?" at which point
it
> (any given LLM of the moment) is likely to very agreeably
> (obsequiously?) pretends to do just that. For my purposes, it is
> (almost?) as if it is in fact doing "just that"... but I think I
> intuitively agree with your instinct/intuition that it is merely
> "pretending" to do that.
>
> Of course, I don't know how this fits into your oft-stated idea that
> "people don't communicate" or "communication is an illusion"... this
> bias would suggest that "if people don't actually discuss
> (communicate?), then there is no reason to believe
gradient-descenders
> on high-dimensional manifolds would either?"
>
> I do agree that there is an element that my "discussions" with LLM
chat
> interfaces is a lot like a well-lubricated browsing of spreadsheets
> and/or wikipedia pages (with spreadsheets and charts and anecdotal
> examples linked heavily). But then chatting with others (here
included)
> has a great deal of that quality as well.
>
> Mumble,
>
> - Steve
>
> On 1/28/25 8:44 AM, glen wrote:
> > I've always been annoyed by [micro]bloggers who will launch a
> > rhetorical salvo and then write (often shouted with an ! or all
caps)
> > "Discuss!" What Claude and GPT are doing here is not discussing.
It's
> > not even "discursing", which I guess isn't a word. The prompt
would
> > better be "Lecture me on ...". But when I type that into the
anthropic
> > console (3.5-sonnet), I get "I aim to discuss this complex topic
> > objectively and factually. Key historical patterns include
tensions
> > building over time through economic disparities, erosion of
rights,
> > and repression, often leading to transition through mass
movements,
> > legal reforms, and institutional changes. I can discuss specific
> > historical examples if you're interested."
> >
> > Jesus H Christ. Claude is using your sense of the word "discuss"
too!
> > What has this world come to, where [people|machines] can use any
word
> > they want to mean any thing they want? Get off my lawn!
> >
> > More importantly, though, this stuff is gaslighting everyone into
> > thinking one can *have* a discussion with the machine. Can you?
Is it
> > actually a discussion? I argue "no". It's much more akin to
browsing a
> > spreadsheet than discussing. Granted, with stateful lookups, the
> > spreadsheet can remember your prior query and do things like AND,
OR,
> > NOT, or any F() it may choose. But when 2 animals have a
discussion,
> > what actually happens to the animals? Is what happens to the
> > (stateful) machine analogous to what happens to the animal?
> >
> > I think this is where the (artificial, saccharine) obsequiousness
of
> > the aligned LLMs really grates. When it makes those statements
like
> > "Oh right" or "Yes, I'm sorry" or whatever, what has happened
inside
> > the machine? Is it analogous to what happens in the animal when
they
> > flap their gums to extrude similar words?
> >
> > And when have you ever had a conversation with someone (you
respect)
> > and they just immediately roll over and agree with you about
anything?
> > Is this why people like "chatting" with LLMs? Because they're
> > obsequious? Is it just a fancier "filter bubble"? Ugh. Now I'm
> > nauseous. Thanks Obama.
> >
> >
> > On 1/27/25 5:16 PM, Stephen Guerin wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 1:08 PM Marcus Daniels <mar...@snoutfarm.com
<mailto:mar...@snoutfarm.com> <mailto:mar...@snoutfarm.com <mailto:mar...@snoutfarm.com>>
> >> <mailto:mar...@snoutfarm.com <mailto:mar...@snoutfarm.com>
<mailto:mar...@snoutfarm.com <mailto:mar...@snoutfarm.com>>>> wrote:
> >>
> >> I asked Claude about the historical patterns for emergence
and
> >> resolution of political violence from corrupt leaders that are
> >> considered illegitimate, and it essentially refused to answer.
> >> ChatGPT was more forthcoming..
> >>
> >>
> >> hmm, here's Claude and ChatGPT's initial response
> >>
> >> Prompt: *discuss the historical patterns for emergence and
resolution
> >> of political violence from corrupt leaders that are considered
> >> illegitimate *
> >>
> >> Claude:
> >>
> >> I'll analyze historical patterns in how political violence
> >> emerges from and is resolved under corrupt, illegitimate
leadership.
> >> Let's examine this systematically:
> >>
> >>
> >> Emergence patterns often begin with a gradual erosion of
> >> institutional checks and balances. Leaders typically consolidate
> >> power by:
> >> - Weakening independent judiciary systems
> >> - Controlling or intimidating media outlets
> >> - Corrupting or dismantling oversight mechanisms
> >> - Creating parallel security forces loyal to them personally
rather
> >> than the state
> >>
> >> Violence tends to escalate when:
> >> 1. Economic conditions deteriorate and inequality increases
> >> 2. Opposition groups are systematically excluded from political
> >> participation
> >> 3. Security forces are given impunity for human rights violations
> >> 4. Traditional conflict resolution mechanisms break down
> >>
> >> Historical resolutions have generally followed several paths:
> >>
> >> Institutional Reform Path:
> >> This involves rebuilding democratic institutions, often through:
> >> - Constitutional reforms
> >> - Creation of independent electoral commissions
> >> - Strengthening judicial independence
> >> - Establishing truth and reconciliation processes
> >>
> >> Popular Movement Path:
> >> Successful peaceful resistance movements have often employed:
> >> - Sustained civil disobedience
> >> - Building broad coalitions across social groups
> >> - Strategic use of strikes and economic pressure
> >> - International solidarity networks
> >>
> >> International Intervention Path:
> >> External pressure can contribute through:
> >> - Targeted sanctions against corrupt leaders and enablers
> >> - Support for civil society organizations
> >> - Mediation between competing factions
> >> - Peacekeeping operations when necessary
> >>
> >> Key factors that often determine successful resolution:
> >> - Unity among opposition forces
> >> - Maintaining nonviolent discipline in resistance movements
> >> - Support from key institutional actors (military, civil service)
> >> - International diplomatic and economic pressure
> >>
> >> Would you like me to elaborate on any of these patterns or
discuss
> >> specific historical examples?
> >>
> >>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >> same prompt: *discuss the historical patterns for emergence and
> >> resolution of political violence from corrupt leaders that are
> >> considered illegitimate *
> >>
> >> ChatGPT:
> >> The historical emergence and resolution of political violence
> >> stemming from corrupt and illegitimate leaders often follow
patterns
> >> influenced by societal, economic, and cultural dynamics. These
> >> patterns can be divided into phases:
> >>
> >> ### 1. **Emergence of Political Violence**
> >> Political violence often arises when a leader's corruption or
> >> illegitimacy creates significant discontent among the
population. Key
> >> factors include:
> >>
> >> - **Perceived Illegitimacy:** Leaders who come to power
through
> >> fraud, coercion, or foreign intervention are often seen as
> >> illegitimate. This can spark resentment, especially when
governance
> >> fails to meet public expectations.
> >> - **Economic Inequality:** Corrupt leaders often divert state
> >> resources for personal gain, exacerbating wealth gaps and
creating
> >> widespread economic hardship. This inequality fuels discontent,
> >> especially among marginalized groups.
> >> - **Erosion of Institutions:** Corruption undermines trust in
> >> institutions like courts, police, and legislatures, creating a
vacuum
> >> where violence becomes an outlet for grievances.
> >> - **Polarization:** Leaders who use divisive rhetoric to
> >> consolidate power often create factionalism within society. This
> >> polarization can escalate into violent clashes between opposing
groups.
> >> - **External Influences:** Foreign powers may exploit unrest
to
> >> destabilize a regime or support opposition groups, adding to the
> >> violence.
> >>
> >> ### 2. **Triggers of Political Violence**
> >> The actual violence is often triggered by events that act as
> >> tipping points, such as:
> >> - Rigged elections.
> >> - Unjustified crackdowns on protests.
> >> - Revelations of egregious corruption.
> >> - Human rights abuses or massacres.
> >>
> >> Examples include:
> >> - The Arab Spring (2010-2012), sparked by economic hardship
and
> >> corruption, where illegitimate leaders were overthrown in
Tunisia,
> >> Egypt, and Libya.
> >> - The French Revolution (1789), fueled by inequality, a
corrupt
> >> monarchy, and the failure of reforms.
> >>
> >> ### 3. **Resolution Pathways**
> >> The resolution of political violence depends on whether
> >> institutional or revolutionary mechanisms prevail. Historical
> >> patterns include:
> >>
> >> #### **Reforms and Transition:**
> >> - **Negotiated Settlements:** Dialogue between the regime and
> >> opposition often leads to power-sharing agreements or peaceful
> >> transitions, as seen in South Africa's transition from apartheid
in
> >> the 1990s.
> >> - **Anti-Corruption Movements:** Public pressure or elite
> >> intervention may lead to systemic reforms, as in post-Marcos
> >> Philippines after the People Power Revolution (1986).
> >>
> >> #### **Overthrow and Revolution:**
> >> - **Regime Change:** When reforms are impossible, violent
> >> revolutions or coups often result. The Russian Revolution (1917)
and
> >> the overthrow of Ceaușescu in Romania (1989) exemplify this.
> >> - **Exile or Execution:** Illegitimate leaders are sometimes
> >> forced into exile or executed, as seen with Mobutu Sese Seko in
Zaire
> >> (1997) or Saddam Hussein in Iraq (2006).
> >>
> >> #### **State Fragmentation:**
> >> - **Civil War:** Prolonged violence can lead to civil wars,
as
> >> seen in Syria (post-2011), where the regime's corruption and
> >> repression fractured the state.
> >>
> >> ### 4. **Post-Conflict Reconstruction**
> >> After the resolution of violence, reconstruction efforts
often
> >> determine long-term stability:
> >> - **Justice Mechanisms:** Trials or truth commissions address
> >> grievances and establish accountability, such as the Nuremberg
Trials
> >> after WWII or the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South
Africa.
> >> - **Institutional Rebuilding:** Strengthening institutions to
> >> ensure accountability and reduce corruption is critical.
> >> - **Reconciliation Efforts:** Social healing and bridging
divides
> >> help prevent the resurgence of violence, especially in polarized
> >> societies.
> >>
> >> ### 5. **Broader Historical Insights**
> >> - **Cycles of Corruption and Reform:** Political systems
often
> >> experience cycles where corruption accumulates until it triggers
> >> violence or reform, only to repeat in new forms (e.g., the Roman
> >> Empire's fall or Latin American dictatorships in the 20th
century).
> >> - **Role of Leadership and Movements:** Effective leadership
and
> >> well-organized movements often determine whether change occurs
> >> peacefully or through violence.
> >> - **Global Trends:** External pressures, such as economic
> >> sanctions or global public opinion, can expedite resolutions but
may
> >> also exacerbate conflict.
> >>
> >> ### Lessons for Today
> >> The patterns of political violence around corrupt leaders
underscore
> >> the importance of:
> >> - Inclusive governance to address grievances before they
escalate.
> >> - Strong institutions that resist corruption and ensure
legitimacy.
> >> - Global and regional mechanisms to mediate conflicts and
promote
> >> peaceful transitions.
> >>
> >> Do you want to explore examples in more detail or focus on a
> >> particular region or time period?
> >>
