Taste is increasingly dictated by algorithms(racked.com)
racked.com
Taste is increasingly dictated by algorithms
https://www.racked.com/2018/4/17/17219166/fashion-style-algorithm-amazon-echo-look
80 comments
> Gently, I would suggest that we are neither original nor should we find our identity in material goods.
This in spades. We spend so much time arguing the merits of our choice in cell phones, computers, living styles, organizations, cars, etc. seemingly forgetting that we are supposed to choose things, things aren't suppose to choose us.
The Mad Man marketing people salivate every time an iPhone versus Android argument sparks, they spent decades trying to get consumers to be loyal enough to get into fistfights over brands of products.
This in spades. We spend so much time arguing the merits of our choice in cell phones, computers, living styles, organizations, cars, etc. seemingly forgetting that we are supposed to choose things, things aren't suppose to choose us.
The Mad Man marketing people salivate every time an iPhone versus Android argument sparks, they spent decades trying to get consumers to be loyal enough to get into fistfights over brands of products.
> The internet removes serendipity
It also removes the social context around the production of taste. Taste, in addition to being a set of personal preferences, is also a conscious and unconscious way of both signaling social status and creating empathy between people. This is largely absent in algorithm-facilitated media consumption. Facebook/spotify/whatever else is an intercessor between you and your group of friends and peers, removing the patterns of social interactions surrounding our formation of likes and dislikes and replacing them with an anonymized distillation of what other people enjoy. I don't think that's a good thing. There's a huge chunk of human interaction that's being elided here.
It also removes the social context around the production of taste. Taste, in addition to being a set of personal preferences, is also a conscious and unconscious way of both signaling social status and creating empathy between people. This is largely absent in algorithm-facilitated media consumption. Facebook/spotify/whatever else is an intercessor between you and your group of friends and peers, removing the patterns of social interactions surrounding our formation of likes and dislikes and replacing them with an anonymized distillation of what other people enjoy. I don't think that's a good thing. There's a huge chunk of human interaction that's being elided here.
That's a great angle, actually. I'm not sure that I am sad about the status games being elided, but you're unquestionably right that taste is a product of social context and that - social context - is something incredibly important to being human. To remove it, is to take an important cog out of the system.
> they also allow for a free-range wandering over the stacks, rather than keeping you in one specific area of "you may also like"
You mean like the "Random" links on Wikipedia and Reddit?
You mean like the "Random" links on Wikipedia and Reddit?
no.
libraries are curated, organized, and structured to allow browsing.
random does nothing of the above.
meaning is a polyspectral space, and libraries are a lower-dimensional reduction of that to allow perusal through multiple bands of meaning. while the result may be arbitrary, it's within the bounds of the arc in the meaning-space. In addition, the curation of books means that arrant nonsense is culled (hello r/ooer), and highly niche bits of meaning are stored in appropriate places - usually residing in academic journals housed in university libraries.
libraries are curated, organized, and structured to allow browsing.
random does nothing of the above.
meaning is a polyspectral space, and libraries are a lower-dimensional reduction of that to allow perusal through multiple bands of meaning. while the result may be arbitrary, it's within the bounds of the arc in the meaning-space. In addition, the curation of books means that arrant nonsense is culled (hello r/ooer), and highly niche bits of meaning are stored in appropriate places - usually residing in academic journals housed in university libraries.
Libraries are also tiny though. Subreddits also have curated lists of related subreddits in sidebar. /r/popular and /r/all give you a sample of posts from various subreddits (curated by users), which then link to related subs. Each sub itself is a browsable and sortable collection of related content.
Yes, definitely. I would consider a subreddit to be something like a daily magazine, and the curated lists to be something like a collection of them.
Libraries.... are not precisely tiny. Depends on the library. And a shocking amount of internet statements have a shockingly small entropy.....
Libraries.... are not precisely tiny. Depends on the library. And a shocking amount of internet statements have a shockingly small entropy.....
Not really, since libraries are not laid out randomly, and few electronic display experiences allow the kind of massively parallel visual scanning that humans are good at.
One of the great pleasures of working at a research university is walking through the stacks and seeing shelf after shelf of books on the odd and interesting topics—-and they’re all free for the taking.
I’d easily put this in the top three reasons I stay in this job.
I’d easily put this in the top three reasons I stay in this job.
> You mean like the "Random" links on Wikipedia and Reddit?
I consider clicking the random link on Reddit analogous to firing a gun into a bookstore, or randomly flipping channels on a TV: no discernment whatsoever, and very shallow, very often completely worthless results. 99% of the time I click random on Reddit, it comes up with complete garbage, IMHO, to the point I don't use it anymore. Meanwhile, the best subreddits I've come across have been "curated" by recommendations.
I consider clicking the random link on Reddit analogous to firing a gun into a bookstore, or randomly flipping channels on a TV: no discernment whatsoever, and very shallow, very often completely worthless results. 99% of the time I click random on Reddit, it comes up with complete garbage, IMHO, to the point I don't use it anymore. Meanwhile, the best subreddits I've come across have been "curated" by recommendations.
> Gently, I would suggest that we are neither original nor should we find our identity in material goods.
I wouldn't be so gentle; I definitely think we are harmed by finding identity in material goods. It's destructive.
As for originality, I would modify the goal: don't try to be original. Instead, aim to stretch your mind to think things it hasn't thought before. If you get so far that you do think something original, great! If you don't, at least you've expanded your horizons.
> While libraries have librarians making selections, they also allow for a free-range wandering over the stacks, rather than keeping you in one specific area of "you may also like". That is something worth thinking about, and, I think, solvable.
And I'm glad to see we've come to roughly the same conclusion, even if that makes us "not original." ;-)
I wouldn't be so gentle; I definitely think we are harmed by finding identity in material goods. It's destructive.
As for originality, I would modify the goal: don't try to be original. Instead, aim to stretch your mind to think things it hasn't thought before. If you get so far that you do think something original, great! If you don't, at least you've expanded your horizons.
> While libraries have librarians making selections, they also allow for a free-range wandering over the stacks, rather than keeping you in one specific area of "you may also like". That is something worth thinking about, and, I think, solvable.
And I'm glad to see we've come to roughly the same conclusion, even if that makes us "not original." ;-)
>Gently, I would suggest that we are neither original nor should we find our identity in material goods
While I agree with the first part, identity is tied to society, unless we are to become reclusive hermits. I would suggest that while better, even people who look back to a pre-consumerist lifestyle, are engaging in lifestyle (and thus identity) unless it's a completely unattached choice (again reclusive hermit).
It reminds me of my High School anti-establishment, anti-in-crowd anti-jocks who in being all things-anti were a definable entity in itself with a prescribed set of attitudes and behavior -and music specially.
While I agree with the first part, identity is tied to society, unless we are to become reclusive hermits. I would suggest that while better, even people who look back to a pre-consumerist lifestyle, are engaging in lifestyle (and thus identity) unless it's a completely unattached choice (again reclusive hermit).
It reminds me of my High School anti-establishment, anti-in-crowd anti-jocks who in being all things-anti were a definable entity in itself with a prescribed set of attitudes and behavior -and music specially.
That is identity in material good selection - or the material good non-selection.
I am suggesting that a, how do you say, Stoic? Zen? Tao? attitude about material goods is something to be desired.
They are there, they are useful, they have a social context, but your identity is more than goods.
I am suggesting that a, how do you say, Stoic? Zen? Tao? attitude about material goods is something to be desired.
They are there, they are useful, they have a social context, but your identity is more than goods.
identity is tied to society, unless we are to become reclusive hermits
Ah, but the reclusive hermit is a response to the society - an active rejection - such that the hermit is one of the lifestyles most consumed with society's affects!
Similarly the "hipster" has a finely refined vane on popular culture. Calling a hermit/hipster disconnected from society It's like calling an antihistamine disconnected from pollen.
Ah, but the reclusive hermit is a response to the society - an active rejection - such that the hermit is one of the lifestyles most consumed with society's affects!
Similarly the "hipster" has a finely refined vane on popular culture. Calling a hermit/hipster disconnected from society It's like calling an antihistamine disconnected from pollen.
To me the hermit is different because the hermit is not looking for approval at all --the hermit is only looking to be by themselves and be of themselves.
They don't care if they are admired, rejected, remembered or forgotten.
Sadly even when they just want to be forgotten, Journalists looking for a story to tell hunt them down, sometimes[1]. Some people just want to be outside of it all.
[1]https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/03/homeles...
They don't care if they are admired, rejected, remembered or forgotten.
Sadly even when they just want to be forgotten, Journalists looking for a story to tell hunt them down, sometimes[1]. Some people just want to be outside of it all.
[1]https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/03/homeles...
If you leave society altogether, you’re not part of it any longer.
I'm a film buff and I think so. A lot of people don't seem to go out of their way to obtain films aside from looking at Netflix recommendations. Back when I used OkCupid I could tell when something older went on because it immediately got listed under "favorite movies" by a certain type of hipster ;)
(I distinctly remember how overnight everyone looooovveeed Amelie when it went up)
Sadly it's a lot harder to find new (or new to me) films serendipitously. With the closing of rental shops, the last bastion seems to be the DVD section at local libraries.
(I distinctly remember how overnight everyone looooovveeed Amelie when it went up)
Sadly it's a lot harder to find new (or new to me) films serendipitously. With the closing of rental shops, the last bastion seems to be the DVD section at local libraries.
> I'm a film buff and I think so. A lot of people don't seem to go out of their way to obtain films aside from looking at Netflix recommendations.
I suspect that's not Netflix's recommendations, but just having it added to Netflix. Anything new tends to get a lot of views, as people actively go through the "New" category.
I suspect that's not Netflix's recommendations, but just having it added to Netflix. Anything new tends to get a lot of views, as people actively go through the "New" category.
I'm rarely satisfied with recommendation engines, but I actually got good results with https://movielens.org/ - maybe worth a try for you.
Also, Mubi is a great resource for films, curated by themes, topics and users. Unfortunately their streamign/licensing model of showing a small selection of films for a limited time isn't very useful to me. Nevertheless the content is great: https://mubi.com
Also, Mubi is a great resource for films, curated by themes, topics and users. Unfortunately their streamign/licensing model of showing a small selection of films for a limited time isn't very useful to me. Nevertheless the content is great: https://mubi.com
And yet I find it impossible to muster any indignation at the idea of more people watching and enjoying Amélie.
It might be interesting to analyze how it is you serendipitously find new films and whether that could be applied to a site like Netflix. Is it a cover that catches your eye? A recommendation from a passerby? A random pick off the shelf? Etc. Any of these approaches could be replicated in a web interface.
I think Stumbleupon was quite clever at what it did and I'm disappointed more services haven't picked up on the "Give us a broad category and pull the lever to make the slot machine spit out something you've never seen before" approach to content. But it does give me hope that algorithms can provide the experience of serendipity if the people designing the application make that choice.
I think Stumbleupon was quite clever at what it did and I'm disappointed more services haven't picked up on the "Give us a broad category and pull the lever to make the slot machine spit out something you've never seen before" approach to content. But it does give me hope that algorithms can provide the experience of serendipity if the people designing the application make that choice.
>It might be interesting to analyze how it is you serendipitously find new films and whether that could be applied to a site like Netflix.
Netflix seems to have a borderline religious obsession with keeping the UI "simple",
A "random film" button would be welcome IMHO. (Or random within categories)
Netflix seems to have a borderline religious obsession with keeping the UI "simple",
A "random film" button would be welcome IMHO. (Or random within categories)
Do you think people actually like—or are claiming to like—a movie just because Netflix recommends it? To me, it seems more likely that this just reflects increase availability: more people suddenly have access to a movie, so more watch it and some of those will like it.
I can see how people, especially on a dating site, would feel pressured to mention something highbrow, but the social pressure itself isn’t coming from Netflix.
I can see how people, especially on a dating site, would feel pressured to mention something highbrow, but the social pressure itself isn’t coming from Netflix.
They weren't pressured to like it, but without the "algorithm" showing it to them, they never would have discovered it.
Presumably the people who liked Amelie would have enjoyed it both before and after they saw it, but how could they know they liked it until they knew enough about other people liking it and why those people liked it to like it themselves?
I can't tell if you think all/most the people who claimed they liked Amelie are dishonestly reporting they liked it because it is important for them to like something other people like?
I can't tell if you think all/most the people who claimed they liked Amelie are dishonestly reporting they liked it because it is important for them to like something other people like?
I think the point is not that they are being disingenuous, but that even people who are deliberately trying to like obscure things nowadays are primarily just consuming what Netflix shows them.
In 2018, if you're primarily using Netflix you're not deliberately trying to find obscure stuff. ;)
>> harder to find new (or new to me) films serendipitously.
There are places. I wouldn't condone copyright violations but the various forums used by filesharers are the modern incarnation of the film rental shelf. People publish collections based on their own tastes regardless of copyrights, contracts or other limitations. These are movie lovers and will point you to films that you would never normally consider. It is then on you to hunt down these recommendations through legal means.
I have discovered many a great European scifi series through filesharing forums. Getting hold of a legal copy is often difficult, but I'd rather spend effort to obtain a great thing than wade through the sea of junk 'recommended' by netflix. Currently I'm trying to find a copy of "The City and The City", which appeared on a pirate feed a few weeks ago and looks like a great series.
There are places. I wouldn't condone copyright violations but the various forums used by filesharers are the modern incarnation of the film rental shelf. People publish collections based on their own tastes regardless of copyrights, contracts or other limitations. These are movie lovers and will point you to films that you would never normally consider. It is then on you to hunt down these recommendations through legal means.
I have discovered many a great European scifi series through filesharing forums. Getting hold of a legal copy is often difficult, but I'd rather spend effort to obtain a great thing than wade through the sea of junk 'recommended' by netflix. Currently I'm trying to find a copy of "The City and The City", which appeared on a pirate feed a few weeks ago and looks like a great series.
i mean Amelie does fucking own though
Here, this should keep you busy for a while:
https://mubi.com/lists
https://mubi.com/lists
This is obviously useless for almost everyone, likely including you, but I urge anyone in or near Seattle who has this problem to check out Scarecrow Video[0] which has over 100,000 films in a variety of formats organized by director.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scarecrow_Video
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scarecrow_Video
I think everyone is overestimating the importance of the "favorite movie" section of a dating profile.
Once a dating profile has been created it is RARELY edited in anything but photos.
No one was going back to put Amelie into their favorite movies. They just were filling out the BEAST LIST of requirements and personality tests, and quickly filled in that field with a non embarrassing movie they had seen recently.
I think this years most favorite movie was probably "GET OUT". But that shit will be a footnote except for film buffs in 3 or 4.
Once a dating profile has been created it is RARELY edited in anything but photos.
No one was going back to put Amelie into their favorite movies. They just were filling out the BEAST LIST of requirements and personality tests, and quickly filled in that field with a non embarrassing movie they had seen recently.
I think this years most favorite movie was probably "GET OUT". But that shit will be a footnote except for film buffs in 3 or 4.
On the topic of algorithms helping you discover your own 'taste' (whatever that may be), some time ago when the topic came up on HN someone linked this interesting paper: "Recommender Systems for Self-Actualization" [1], which suggests some methods how filter bubbles could be avoided. I really liked it and its suggestions like having extra recommendation lists for things the user will likely hate, items that are very polarizing in the user base or things no one ever rated before.
[1] https://sci-hub.tw/https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=295918...
[1] https://sci-hub.tw/https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=295918...
Cool paper. Thanks
It is pretty difficult for Netflix or Amazon to have recommendations that appeal to me because their datasets are limited to their specific domains. In reality, my tastes and interests pull from such a wide range of fields.
One year, I decided to only watch movies filmed in, or about, the state where I live. One year I caught up on famous horror movies I hadn't seen. None of these ideas was "suggested" to me directly. Nor, do they really seem related to each other. For me, at least, it seems a long way off before computer algorithms are affecting the way my brain chooses something it likes or wants to try.
One year, I decided to only watch movies filmed in, or about, the state where I live. One year I caught up on famous horror movies I hadn't seen. None of these ideas was "suggested" to me directly. Nor, do they really seem related to each other. For me, at least, it seems a long way off before computer algorithms are affecting the way my brain chooses something it likes or wants to try.
Yes, I see this issue with Netflix very often. Watching Narcos doesn't mean I'm interested in every mediocre drug-related documentary. Instead I'm looking for high quality, detailed, in-depth productions covering a wide array of very different themes, topics, locations and periods.
Algorithms don't seem to be able to solve this problem yet. Certainly not those used at Netflix.
Algorithms don't seem to be able to solve this problem yet. Certainly not those used at Netflix.
How are recommendation algorithms robbing anyone? I can understand a credit score algorithm denying a loan as potentially robbing. Recommendations seem at the worst to be as annoying as a poorly curated catalogue. Am I missing something?
Answer: no.
It would probably help the argument if all of the 'data-driven' products: dropshipped watches, Echo Look, whatever the hell 'Svpply' is, and virtual Instagram influencers weren't completely obscure. None of these things represent mainstream culture in any way, and as a result this article starts to look more like an exercise in the writer showing how smart and well-connected he is.
I find the illustrations in this somewhat profoundly undermine the thesis of this article, given that they are rooted in the “vaporwave” aesthetic, which basically comes from Millennials sorting through their faint memories of the 80s culture they were born into.
> That we are in the midst of this shift in taste might help explain our larger mood of instability and paranoia (or is it just me?).
It's just you. There's always been a mainstream and an underground. Now the underground is much larger and more diverse and arguably the mainstream is a bit better (due to said diversity).
Source: I lived through the 90s and was basically forced by Clear Channel to listen to Ozzy Osbourne 24/7 on every station on the dial.
It's just you. There's always been a mainstream and an underground. Now the underground is much larger and more diverse and arguably the mainstream is a bit better (due to said diversity).
Source: I lived through the 90s and was basically forced by Clear Channel to listen to Ozzy Osbourne 24/7 on every station on the dial.
It seems to me that there are no more undergrounds any more - it's very hard for something to be both "popular" and "undiscovered", and there's an entire industry of trend-hunters looking to monetise new scenes the second they're discovered.
Similarly the mainstream is not so big any more. Back in 1977 half the UK, 28 million people, watched the Morecambe and Wise Christmas Show live. That was our peak mainstream, a shared set of jokes everyone could be expected to know. Now peak programmes reach about half that audience.
Similarly the mainstream is not so big any more. Back in 1977 half the UK, 28 million people, watched the Morecambe and Wise Christmas Show live. That was our peak mainstream, a shared set of jokes everyone could be expected to know. Now peak programmes reach about half that audience.
Great point, they didn't have algorithms deciding our music in the 1990s, instead you had Clear Channel. Radio in the 1990s was the same 40-60 songs played over and over. Then for TV you basically had the 4 major networks,FOX Friday Night, Must See TV, TGIF, and all the rest.
People don't remember how much that sucked.
People don't remember how much that sucked.
Actually, in the 1990s was the peak of major commercial broadcast networks with 6, not 4 (the old big 3, plus Fox, plus UPN And The WB.)
Ah yes, the Wayans Brothers channel and the Star Trek Voyager channel
This is a really thought provoking article. I especially like the reference to the movie The Devil Wears Prada, because in essence, what is being described is a very complex algorithm embedded in a large group of people observing a lot of things (fashion trends).
The question raised in my mind is this: where is the tipping point at which the answers / predictions in that algorithm become stale or shift rapidly and require an answer that is orthogonal to previews answers (!) but still "correct". This tipping point seems to be what taste is about to some degree. ..so now we need an algorithm to predict the tipping point; its algorithms all the way down.
The question raised in my mind is this: where is the tipping point at which the answers / predictions in that algorithm become stale or shift rapidly and require an answer that is orthogonal to previews answers (!) but still "correct". This tipping point seems to be what taste is about to some degree. ..so now we need an algorithm to predict the tipping point; its algorithms all the way down.
Again, the core "meat and potatoes" of this article is that neural networks that do the thinking are black boxes. We know not how they are trained, know not their biases, and know not how they come to a specific decision.
But we are supposed to trust the NN in my life? I think not!
But we are supposed to trust the NN in my life? I think not!
I think lot of media seems to misunderstand the idea of algorithms - They are not there to do the job for you, they are there to help you.
Taking the dating example from the article - it speaks less about intimacy and more about people's expectation. Does matching means a sure shot chance of intimacy? Not really. Algo thinks that two particular people might go well together. A role previously played by a mutual friend.
Similarly, there are tons of people who want to wear better clothes but given lack of knowledge turn to YT or a personal stylist. So, the app might help them make better choices. Surely, people who are stylish might never use the app.
That said, technology companies do have a habit of overselling features sending media into a tizzy.
Taking the dating example from the article - it speaks less about intimacy and more about people's expectation. Does matching means a sure shot chance of intimacy? Not really. Algo thinks that two particular people might go well together. A role previously played by a mutual friend.
Similarly, there are tons of people who want to wear better clothes but given lack of knowledge turn to YT or a personal stylist. So, the app might help them make better choices. Surely, people who are stylish might never use the app.
That said, technology companies do have a habit of overselling features sending media into a tizzy.
Really interesting article. Weird thing is that in the social media era, humans ourselves seem behave in algorithmic ways. My Twitter feed is full of Beyonce worship every few months even though I've been mostly-indifferent to her music for 20 years. But when people come together like a hive and retweet how they excited they are about some shared interest, there doesn't need to be a recommendation engine pushing a specific artist—it's just people using tools to amplify their voices, creating the same algorithmic-bias effect. To paraphrase the Soylent Green line, "Algorithms—it's people!"
Initially the algorithm is a reflection (or amplification) of our existing behavior. But at some point, that reflection and amplification causes it's own ripples.
So, the Beyonce fever becomes pitched in large part because of algorithms suggesting that content. I don't think each of those tweets would have happened independently.
The critique is that we're being fed so many suggestions that we don't have room to find out for ourselves what we like or want to talk about. Instead many times we're simply responding to and consuming the recommended content.
So there are people at the wheel, but the majority is along for the ride.
So, the Beyonce fever becomes pitched in large part because of algorithms suggesting that content. I don't think each of those tweets would have happened independently.
The critique is that we're being fed so many suggestions that we don't have room to find out for ourselves what we like or want to talk about. Instead many times we're simply responding to and consuming the recommended content.
So there are people at the wheel, but the majority is along for the ride.
When I was in Japan in 2011, nearly every girl I talked to had the same favorite singer -- Lady Gaga. I noticed that Japanese pop culture diversifies in time rather than space: something reaches critical mass and then sweeps the entire nation like cherry blossom season, only to be swept away by the next big thing weeks later. Also trending at that time were the anime One Piece and the Disney character Stitch (who had just gotten his own anime which was the canon sequel to Lilo and Stitch and takes place in Okinawa rather than Hawaii). Previous trends are traceable even after they've left Japan: in the late 1980s, Nickelodeon suddenly picked up several shows featuring koalas. What had happened was, a few years earlier, an Australian zoo donated a breeding pair of koalas to a Japanese zoo, and that triggered "koala mania" in Japan with koala-themed anime becoming popular. A similar mania involving hamsters struck in the early 2000s.
Japanese people are individuals, but Japanese society favors the collective, and the person who goes along to get along. Accordingly, people are rewarded for adding their voices to the throngs supporting something that is already popular or favored by the elite, much less so for cultivating individual tastes, which are pushed to the sidelines (think back-alley Akihabara with its tsundere maid cafés and other businesses of peculiar interest).
In the USA we put high value on "being an individual like everyone else". Social media has simply amplified the "like everyone else" bit by making it easy to keep track of what everyone else is doing. Something that's been ongoing in Japan for decades if not centuries. (The koseki can be considered a form of paper-and-ink social media.)
Japanese people are individuals, but Japanese society favors the collective, and the person who goes along to get along. Accordingly, people are rewarded for adding their voices to the throngs supporting something that is already popular or favored by the elite, much less so for cultivating individual tastes, which are pushed to the sidelines (think back-alley Akihabara with its tsundere maid cafés and other businesses of peculiar interest).
In the USA we put high value on "being an individual like everyone else". Social media has simply amplified the "like everyone else" bit by making it easy to keep track of what everyone else is doing. Something that's been ongoing in Japan for decades if not centuries. (The koseki can be considered a form of paper-and-ink social media.)
> Japanese pop culture diversifies in time rather than space
That's not diversity, it's simply pop culture.
That's not diversity, it's simply pop culture.
I don't know that algorithms are the sole cause, but this behavior, where nearly everyone has the same opinion, really annoys me. As you said, Beyonce worship is a common one. Or that Empire Strikes Back is the best of the original Star Wars and Return of the Jedi is the worst. I hear these ideas all over as if they were facts rather than opinions. Just have an original thought people.
There are only 6 original thoughts about ranking 3 movies, and a billion people who have seen them to form opinions.
In a sense social media feeds on our pack animal hindbrain...
No, social media exposes us to a bigger world making it more easily to find people like you online that share the same interests or "taste".
If you only take into account people on your close social circle, you will still be "the one with that unique taste" around your bubble like everyone used to think they had -a unique taste- before social media.
Not mine. I'm still really fond of quicksort and BFS, and marvel at their elegance rather frequently.
Reminds me of this https://www.theverge.com/2016/8/3/12325104/airbnb-aesthetic-... article on how airbnb has changed the aesthetics of certain places. I feel like fears of algorithmic based fashion is overgrown but articles like this and that one show that something did happen that resulted in taste in certain places converging onto a similar style.
These algorithems don't destroy our taste, they shape it. If it woundnt be for IMDb recommendations, I'd be wasting a lot more time watching bad movies.
If it woundnt be for IMDb recommendations, I'd be wasting a lot more time watching bad movies.
You'd spend more time watching movies that registered IMDb users didn't rate highly. That's only "bad movies" if you enjoy films for the same reasons that registered IMDb users give them high scores on IMDb. There are plenty of films that don't score highly on there that millions of people who are a bit less invested in the film industry absolutely love. Maybe you would too.
You'd spend more time watching movies that registered IMDb users didn't rate highly. That's only "bad movies" if you enjoy films for the same reasons that registered IMDb users give them high scores on IMDb. There are plenty of films that don't score highly on there that millions of people who are a bit less invested in the film industry absolutely love. Maybe you would too.
Pop-up galleries designed for instagram selfie appeal, restaurant trendiness where one ramen place is the "internet approved" one and has an hour long line, and a place two blocks away with a different style - but not really worse, just not as trendy - has no line at all, etc - there are definitely ways in which there's more of a hive mind than ever. The meme popularity of bacon on the internet, even. For a more local example: growing up, Whataburger was just another Texas fast food option, not a tightly-held piece of people's online identities.
But at the same time, there's a lot of opportunities for increased individualism. You can buy clothes and furniture from far more places. You can much more exhaustively search restaurants. You have way more options in what you watch and listen to. Even the existence of "mainstream hipster" taste in movies is a change compared to just "maintstream" being a single thing.
So is personal taste really less present than it used to be? I don't think so, I think the domains just shifted around a bit.
But at the same time, there's a lot of opportunities for increased individualism. You can buy clothes and furniture from far more places. You can much more exhaustively search restaurants. You have way more options in what you watch and listen to. Even the existence of "mainstream hipster" taste in movies is a change compared to just "maintstream" being a single thing.
So is personal taste really less present than it used to be? I don't think so, I think the domains just shifted around a bit.
'Yer ugly and your Echo dresses you funny.'
I cant speak for all mediums, but Spotify's "Related Artists" feature has grown my personal taste in music more then anything else ever has. The ability to easily find similar artists to the one I am currently enjoying drastically lowered the barrier to entry for me and music.
I've always found playlists or indie music stations with actual DJs worked better than Spotify's algorithmic selections.
Same with movie/TV show recommendations.
Same with movie/TV show recommendations.
Clickbait titles does a disservice to the purpose of the body of an article in the sense that it gives easy ammunition to naysayers who will default to pointing out that the degree to which the argument is valid is incorrect. Yes, algorithms may have influenced personal taste in some ways. But has it "destroyed" personal taste? No, that's probably too extreme.
Shorter this article: "I liked it better when my taste was dictated by who paid the most to advertising agencies, not algorithms"
In all seriousness, consider the bit listed under "how to resist the algorithm" (quotes indented):
These processes aren't new - ever wonder why so many pop songs are under 5 minutes (hint: it's not because that's an artistic decision)? In a lot of ways, digital technology demolishes the old barriers; for instance, releasing music doesn't take a significant up-front investment in pressing physical copies & distributing them to stores, so it's easier than ever for that content to get out. Out is key there, IMO - just because it's released doesn't mean anybody ever hears it. Seems like "the algorithm" might actually help in that situation, however: maybe the music only has 200 people that want it, making an old-school marketing push totally impractical.
In all seriousness, consider the bit listed under "how to resist the algorithm" (quotes indented):
I might only read books I stumble across in used bookstores,
only watch TV shows on local channels,
only buy vinyl,
only write letters,
forsake social media for print newspapers,
wear only found vintage.
These processes aren't new - ever wonder why so many pop songs are under 5 minutes (hint: it's not because that's an artistic decision)? In a lot of ways, digital technology demolishes the old barriers; for instance, releasing music doesn't take a significant up-front investment in pressing physical copies & distributing them to stores, so it's easier than ever for that content to get out. Out is key there, IMO - just because it's released doesn't mean anybody ever hears it. Seems like "the algorithm" might actually help in that situation, however: maybe the music only has 200 people that want it, making an old-school marketing push totally impractical.
The difference is that those old ways allowed for greater personal agency. Perusing old books requires selection and even a bit of curation on part of the buyer, whereas algorithmic recommendations make deciding fairly mindless.
You write as if the filters you lament are bad. I think, given the overabundance of mischaracterized crap that seems to clutter up 'algorithmically' filtered exchanges (YouTube, Netflix, etc) I will take human curation and filtration any day of the week, biases and all.
Pandora and Spotify still can't build or execute a playlist like a good DJ can. Netflix's recommendations still miss the mark way more than talking about movies/shows with friends.
You write as if the filters you lament are bad. I think, given the overabundance of mischaracterized crap that seems to clutter up 'algorithmically' filtered exchanges (YouTube, Netflix, etc) I will take human curation and filtration any day of the week, biases and all.
Pandora and Spotify still can't build or execute a playlist like a good DJ can. Netflix's recommendations still miss the mark way more than talking about movies/shows with friends.
> Pandora and Spotify still can't build or execute a playlist like a good DJ can.
Spotify's playlists are at least in part human curated, so not sure how you got to that conclusion.
Spotify's playlists are at least in part human curated, so not sure how you got to that conclusion.
He's obviously talking about the ones that aren't, such as the 'Discover Weekly' and the way it will guess at what to play next after an album finishes.
I believe his point is that the algorithms don't generate playlists or dj mixes with the same polish as a professional human and I'm inclined to agree. That said, I do think their recommendation engine produces decent results, but I don't think the composition of the list is something it focuses on. Rather its just a list of unrelated tracks it thinks you'd be inclined to enjoy on their own.
I believe his point is that the algorithms don't generate playlists or dj mixes with the same polish as a professional human and I'm inclined to agree. That said, I do think their recommendation engine produces decent results, but I don't think the composition of the list is something it focuses on. Rather its just a list of unrelated tracks it thinks you'd be inclined to enjoy on their own.
Exactly. A playlist full of tracks chosen at seeming random lacks the inter-track context that a DJ can add through his choice in selections. Auto-generated playlists have no sense of flow and transition.
You can similarly ruin a good, curated playlist by hitting shuffle.
You can similarly ruin a good, curated playlist by hitting shuffle.
Cuts both ways, for me domain-specific blogs and goodreads (with reviews by other people) influenced my book buying choices way more than any any algorithm and I suspect I'm not the only one.
Vinyl, letters, no social media, found vintage... yes, it's amazing how many of these segue neatly with a SF hipster lifestyle isn't it?
The way you're presenting the issue it's making the whole question about taste unsolveable, really. Knowing what is great in ones own measure can still be learned, though, and please trust a stranger on the internet on that account for all the obvious reasons.
How important can i be, though, there's always that laborous swag thing called "responsibilities". Ask the kids how sexy that one is... Or better, ask a so-called Hipster ;-)
How important can i be, though, there's always that laborous swag thing called "responsibilities". Ask the kids how sexy that one is... Or better, ask a so-called Hipster ;-)
...which have been filtered by publishers deciding which manuscripts to publish, a past consumer deciding which book to buy, AND a used bookstore deciding which books to purchase for resale
..which is filtered much like the used books
Editing is a full-time job, why should consumers do that for themselves?
And, if you can't find products from a selection of professionally edited products, then your sense of taste isn't going to work with other people.
We need to trust editors and human filters more, not less, because they know whats better for you than you know yourself, and certainly better than algorithms.
Algorithms have always been terrible at making taste. This is why a real radio station with a human DJ is always better then the algorithmic radio services. Every time I try to listen to an algorithmic station, I have to turn it off, since they're so bad, even when given my existing playlists.
And can you imagine how bad a fashion magazine would be if it were algorithmically determined?
..which is filtered much like the used books
... and then later filtered by YOU from the thousands of items in the store.
Editing is a full-time job, why should consumers do that for themselves?
And, if you can't find products from a selection of professionally edited products, then your sense of taste isn't going to work with other people.
We need to trust editors and human filters more, not less, because they know whats better for you than you know yourself, and certainly better than algorithms.
Algorithms have always been terrible at making taste. This is why a real radio station with a human DJ is always better then the algorithmic radio services. Every time I try to listen to an algorithmic station, I have to turn it off, since they're so bad, even when given my existing playlists.
And can you imagine how bad a fashion magazine would be if it were algorithmically determined?
Worth remembering is Clay Shirky’s Point about taste, recommendations and power law curves. A paradox of the situation is the growth of these systems, and their elimination of other systems, can ensure that each individual has more options than before, while the total of all options declines.
http://www.shirky.com/writings/herecomeseverybody/powerlaw_w...
http://www.shirky.com/writings/herecomeseverybody/powerlaw_w...
I don't see a significant difference between algorithmic and old-guard mass-media taste-makers. Your personality reflects the profile used to target you with ads for objects like Eames chairs and MCM consoles. Your same personality pushes you to choose Architecture Review, which contains objects of the same style. Fashion magazines get paid by advertisers to showcase products of a certain style and cache even in their non-ad sections. The thin layer of a Vogue editor doesn't shield you from market forces buying your taste and making you feel like the sort of person who chooses a certain style. The homogenizing tendency of mass-media is present in either circumstance.
Most people aren't underground reading fashion zines or choosing to follow edgy fashion designers from Serbia. The dominant culture perpetuates itself either way.
Most people aren't underground reading fashion zines or choosing to follow edgy fashion designers from Serbia. The dominant culture perpetuates itself either way.
Definitely – services like Spotify or Apple Music make it easy to listen to the same top n tracks as everyone else but the lack of an effective training mechanism makes it really hard to break out of the recommendation loop and the cumbersome UI discourages attempting to find things yourself because everything is built on the assumption that the recommendation engine is worth using.
Since they’re widely used, there’s no room for local color or taste the way you used to have local reviewers, independent store clerks, etc. Everyone in the country gets the same thing.
Since they’re widely used, there’s no room for local color or taste the way you used to have local reviewers, independent store clerks, etc. Everyone in the country gets the same thing.
When it comes to these things, I remember when I was younger, how "metal" always was an interesting study object. I would have to decide myself which of it was "artsy" and which of it was just "for the masses", and the further back you go, the more you find that it's not mutually exclusive. E.g. we're not going to argue over the Beatles, Pink Floyd or Iron Maiden.
I listen to various music these days, but I waste "comparably little" time in algorithmic maybe land. As opposed to the constant consumption pressure some people expose themselves with ... whatever the hell that camera does between watching women change.
I listen to various music these days, but I waste "comparably little" time in algorithmic maybe land. As opposed to the constant consumption pressure some people expose themselves with ... whatever the hell that camera does between watching women change.
This submission is rather more substantive than the titles it's had so far ("Have Algorithms Destroyed Personal Taste?", which we renamed to "Style Is an Algorithm" per https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html), so I've taken another crack at it. If anyone suggests a better title—one that is accurate, neutral, and preferably uses representative language from the article—we can change it again.
Article opens with the quote, but that's the essence of a vast amount of art through the ages: only the thinnest bit of art is truly original, and looking to get rid of the non-original bits generates absurd junk.
I would argue that the cult of original and the cult of individualism-via-consumerism is largely an 1800s ideology filtered through post-war marketing. "only by consuming a unique set can you truly be yourself" is a fascinating and materialist way of looking at the world.
Gently, I would suggest that we are neither original nor should we find our identity in material goods.
Elsewhere in this thread the word "serendipity" is used - this is a true observation in my opinion. The internet removes serendipity, replacing it with "you may also like". While libraries have librarians making selections, they also allow for a free-range wandering over the stacks, rather than keeping you in one specific area of "you may also like". That is something worth thinking about, and, I think, solvable.