intended

7,568 karmajoined 16 lat temu

[email protected]

Meh.

comments

8 godzin temudiscuss

Your model has a major gap in it.

Markets don’t come into existence ex nihilo. They come into existence by regulation setting the rules to ensure that the system works for humans.

You have nothing without regulation and government power, setting up the rules and enforcing them.

Further, when we look at the merits of the case which is driving this entire conversation, Meta acted in a manner that most people would consider evil.

And the market is rewarding them for it.

8 godzin temudiscuss

People prefer the more engaging option, based on testing when preferences are offered.

You aren’t really putting a fair choice here. A product that is tested and refined to be viscerally attractive to our brains, vs will power.

This means you have the illusion of individual choice, with practical addiction at scale.

21 godzin temudiscuss

Subreddits get banned for egregious shit. Reddit stays on the side of letting subs up, rather than banning.

Reddit has made it harder for mods to find out which subs you are active in, so that you can’t be banned for activity in subs that are in cold wars with each other.

przedwczorajdiscuss

Isn’t this all left leaning based on US standards?

przedwczorajdiscuss

That position, and this is true of many current discussion on free speech, is suited for the fights we fought and not the situation we face.

I do understand the challenge inherent in combatting inaccurate representations of facts.

This is a tactical issue, however the larger macro picture is very different from even the era of cable news.

So: > You can't ascertain what's true without free speech.

True, but the closer read is: > free speech is a critical component to a free, fair and competitive market place of ideas.

This is going back to the Abram’s dissent. The point of free speech was to ensure that a crucial tactic remained available for a competitive economy to exist.

The problem has since evolved, and the market place is no longer competitive.

This is for a variety of reasons, none of which go back to free speech.

For example:

1) The average person, is going up against content crafted by teams of people whose job it is to figure out how to convince or confuse them.

Individuals have free speech, but at scale the outcome will move in one direction.

You can argue that people can generate counter speech, however:

2) The velocity of content generation has increased: By the time content is debunked, a new crises can be brought up.

People have limited attention to use in a day, so its possible for the more resourced party to keep speaking and “flood the zone”.

3) Verification is hard, generation is easy: V/G - the more content we generate, the less the ratio of verified content is to generated content. This means that the average seek time for individuals goes up.

Free speech has been respected in all those cases, however the competitive exchange and evaluation of ideas has been hosed.

przedwczorajdiscuss

How? By that method you could compare a pebble to the moon and say you were extrapolating.

The only way you would do that is if you didn’t understand the shape/limits of the structures being compared.

przedwczorajdiscuss

I think your question needed to be discussed 10 years ago.

I don’t know the answer to your example, but I would very much like to know what the canonical answer is, and what the pros and cons are.

It’s not a topic that gets as much attention, even here on HN.

przedwczorajdiscuss

Yes! it should be:

Verification/generation

przedwczorajdiscuss

I’d scope it down further than cognition.

Cost of generation has been reduced, and is highly subsidized currently.

Cost of verification has effectively not changed. I’d say as a rule of thumb: verification is the tough part.

Our brains don’t fare well under constant review pressure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ironies_of_Automation

przedwczorajdiscuss

Rate of generation/Rate of verification is a proxy for signal to noise ratios, just for work.

That ratio has changed, and verification is the hard part.

Verification is the point of all markets (and a decent part of human civ as well).

And review isn’t cost less - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ironies_of_Automation

przedwczorajdiscuss

We are all going to discover the Ironies of Automation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ironies_of_Automation

https://ckrybus.com/static/papers/Bainbridge_1983_Automatica...

4 dni temudiscuss

They are difficult lawsuits for sure! But that is because the status quo is already messed up.

These cases are going to bring up questions on content moderation, engagement, ad revenue, age verification, and a whole host of insane things that people don’t want to think about.

4 dni temudiscuss

This does not need to be the case though.

After so many years, the question on the societal utility of meta and similar services is finally being forced.

No matter what the verdict, the design and limits which make effective policy is still to be negotiated and figured out.

4 dni temudiscuss

Yes and no.

At the scale of these firms, it is an issue of incentives, more than it is personal responsibility.

I know that many of the people who worked in safety flagged issues. I know NGOs and victims reached out to people in the firm over and over again.

Humans wanted to do the right thing. Its just that for other humans, they had to answer to shareholders and they had a far stronger set of incentives to ensure they made “number go up”.

Your string of people doing the right thing, makes little headway in the face of the tide of other humans who have incentives to increase time on site.

4 dni temudiscuss

Not quite.

The difference is in rate of generation.

Today, the ratio of good data to slop has dropped. Previously, you couldn't mass produce websites and have content ready to go at a click.

So you had better hit ratios before, and you have worse hit ratios now. The more labour intensive to create content, you lived in a better world.

Hmm, The better the ratio of creating content to verifying content, the better the environment we live in.

4 dni temudiscuss

> while it's an open question

I think theres research that shows that models collapse after being trained on their own content.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07566-y

5 dni temudiscuss

> Billions may die but society will go on with a somewhat lower regard for life and a larger amount of nationalism. Arguably what we consider western society will collapse but that's only existed for under a century.

It is easy to write provocative things when we do not let ourselves bear the weight of their implication. This is horror being outlined.

In earnest conversation, these are sombre and sobering implications, not frivolous or minor things.

This is a sea of humans, extending from one end of the horizon to the other, hungry, lost, frightened, confused, sad and angry. It is the loss of culture, history and fascinating things that one cherishes.

5 dni temudiscuss

> Outside of "great replacement" types.

That is what stood out to me as well, but I could be doing them a disservice.

6 dni temudiscuss

I am curious how humanity is not affected as a whole by climate change.

You already said these are massive geographic issues.

Yet these different, large, geographic problems are of a size that doesn’t end up having even a remote effect on human civilization?

How? Is there some geography which is not impacted at all? A geography where a massive portion of human civilization is situated?

6 dni temudiscuss

I agree.

I find it very difficult to maintain an even tone and address statements that posit climate change positive effects on society.

There are so many incredibly bad things about climate change it boggles the mind.

I try and believe people are burying their heads in the sand to avoid the pain of reckoning with the end of everything they hold dear. This ends up with punches being pulled.