[happytoexplain]

I wish we could stop the slide of the term "performative" into meaninglessness.

Just because something is hard or even impossible to enforce, doesn't mean you don't state that it is not allowed and that there are consequences for being caught. That's a common fallacy that overly engineering-minded people fall into.

We're humans. We care about things. There is nothing strange about me asking you not to do something that I can't stop you from doing.

[chungusamongus]

There is absolutely no fallacy in the statement you're responding to. Laws are meaningless if they cannot be consistently enforced.

[AndrewDucker]

Actually, laws can be really effective even if they are only enforced intermittently.

[0x3f]

I'm not sure how true this is.

If you consider low-stakes crimes, typically to get to a steady state of effectiveness you need at least some sort of bootstrapped period of ubiquitous enforcement. If that's impossible then I'm not sure you ever get to effectiveness.

If we're talking high-stakes, death-penalty-lottery-if-you-break-the-rules type stuff, then I think actually detection rate (i.e. consistent enforcement) is the biggest predictor of reduced rates, not severity of punishment.

[happytoexplain]

Sure, but even giving 100% of the benefit of the doubt you're raising, it still doesn't follow that it is purely "performative" to formally establish a rule just because it may soon become impossible to identify rule-breakers without whistle-blowers or intel.

[0x3f]

Well what purpose does the rule serve if it can't be enforced, if not signalling/norming?

[happytoexplain]

Your premise is fallacious - at best, it is partially enforceable (like I said: whistle-blowers, intel), which gives it teeth (not necessarily much, but more than zero, which makes it useful to some non-zero extent).

Even at worst, it expresses intent, which has meaning to humans. We are humans. I can't force you to do anything, but I can ask you to. Don't disparage what it means to be humans talking to each other - it's one of the few things we have left on Earth.

[chungusamongus]

That is incoherent. Laws that are not consistently enforced are by definition ineffective. For starters, you can at least grant that the law was ineffective for those who violated it and didn't get caught, an inevitable consequence of "intermittent" enforcement. More than that, inconsistent application of the law incentivizes more sophisticated ways to evade it, which means the people who do get caught are simply the ones with less money, resources, connections, etc. If your rejoinder here is that the law still functions as a deterrent to some degree, the onus is on you to prove that.

Let's also acknowledge that you're straying further and further from the central point of this particular discussion. This is not simply about "intermittent" enforcement. Enforcement of this rule will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, as the technology gets more sophisticated.

[SideQuark]

And laws can be completely useless when enforced intermittently.

Laws that are enforced and more importantly are enforceable have a much higher rate of making a difference. The same works here.

[spankibalt]

> "Laws are meaningless if they cannot be consistently enforced."

Laws, per se, are not meaningless. How effective they are is utterly irrelevant in this context; it's another question altogether.

[chungusamongus]

Haha, okay. This is a galaxy brain take if I ever heard one.

[spankibalt]

Naturally, as it's derived from Wittgensteinian [1] readings. Colloquialisms don't fare well in the domain of philosophy of law.

1. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein]

[chungusamongus]

You're having trouble staying on topic. Each pathetic attempt strays further and further from the central question here, which is the use of AI in films and the Academy's decision to impose certain rules around that. The issue is whether this is a meaningless gesture or if it will have real consequences in terms of determining this technology's implementation. What's more troubling is, you haven't demonstrated an understanding of Wittgenstein in the first place yet you confidently cite him to substantiate your circular argument. I'm not particularly concerned with what you think is relevant or not to the discussion as you are guilty of begging the question. Citing Wittgenstein doesn't help you here. If you think it does, you are stuck in the weeds of a language game. Your reply wasn't an adequate counterargument; it was a pretentious non sequitur.

[spankibalt]

Allow me to skip your drivel to the only point worth addressing:

> "The issue is whether [...] it will have real consequences in terms of determining this technology's implementation."

It certainly has consequences regarding this technology's implementation at the Academy.

[happytoexplain]

That just doesn't follow.

[0x3f]

How are there consequences for being caught if it's impossible to detect?

Moreover, why stop here? There are many great rules that are impossible to enforce. Why not a rule that the author isn't allowed to have any racist thoughts when writing the material?

We can't read minds, but it sure is a nice thing to care about, don't you think?

[edmundsauto]

It doesn’t always have to have consequences when it’s a curated access club like the Oscars. It’s ok to have cultural norms that aren’t enforced by consequences, at the very least some of the ethical participants will follow them. I know that I try to follow the spirit of the clubs I participate in, and if they don’t have these types of statements often I just don’t know what the community thinks is ok.

It breaks down when assholes join, or the overly self-interested. This mindset permeates America today, but there are still many collective organizations that don’t need punitive measures. These are less common but when you find them, it’s often a positive signal.