jjulius

I don't spend time giving feedback because...

1.) I don't want to give companies more information about me.

2.) I don't trust that that information will be used to primarily benefit me, I trust that it will be used primarily to keep me on the platform somehow. Ick.

3.) As others have suggested in other comment chains, the way the algorithms have responded to "feedback" I've given it in the past has been so godawful and off-base that I have zero faith it will be of any benefit to contribute my sentiments.

This is what most ads that seem to be "targeted ads" are for me. I buy a thing, and then two weeks later all of the targeted ads are for the thing I bought weeks ago and no longer need.

>The article is about improving recommender systems, not replacing them.

But what's a "recommender system"? Are my friends and family who understand my tastes at a deeper level than an algorithm not a "recommender system"? Is your approach to finding comedies via BFI/They Shoot Pictures not a form of a "recommender system" for you?

If recommender systems truly depend on a deeper level of nuance that they likely won't ever be able to get without people giving up even more privacy than they already do, shouldn't we look at alternative forms of recommendations as a form of improvement, rather than sticking to altering what's already there?

I'd argue that using algorithmic recommendations limits exploration and agency and doesn't allow us to develop our taste beyond our taste's current horizons. Without them, serendipity can be genuinely serendipitous if not moreso, our effort can increase attachment/pleasure when it pays off, and we have more opportunities to build knowledge along the way.

I might be digressing just a bit here, but I fundamentally believe that the answer to broken algorithmic feeds, or recommendation systems, or whathaveyou, isn't going to be found in more algorithms.

>... but what are the alternatives?

I don't want "recommender systems", I just want easily-browsable catalogues that start out being sorted by their actual genre (looking at you, Netflix homepage with a bunch of bullshit 'categories'). I want to be able to look through things at my own pace and in my own way. I want to browse through movies/shows the same way I browse for records in a record store.

I'm happy to take recommendations from friends and family members who know what my nuanced tastes are, I don't want recommendations from some unknown algorithm built by someone for the purpose of keeping me on the platform.

>This is the “If I wouldn’t have done it, somebody else would have”.

This is a disingenuous read of my comment.

>Villains have agency, and deserve to get the blame for their malevolent actions.

On this we absolutely agree, especially in regards to Meta. Nothing in life is that black and white, and there's nuance - to ignore our culture's outsized desire for things like that as a part of what pre-disposes us to being addicted to Meta/et al's bullshit is a fallacy.

>The affirmation we were accustomed to generally had some substance. If someone called, sent you a postcard, or met with you, it probably meant they cared at least to some extent.

For the Average Joe, absolutely! Completely agreed.

>Social media strips all that away to the point where affirmation costs no effort to give but also means nothing. Here's a test I like to recommend: don't post anything on HN, X, or Facebook for a month. See how many people notice or reach out and ask if you're OK. The most likely answer is zero. Hundreds or thousands of "friends", zero meaningful return.

This is what it had been like for celebrities, people of fame, of massive wealth, of great success/achievements, and so forth for a very long time. Cultures put those on a pedestal and encouraged people to want to reach for those same things, to want to be more than the Average Joe. We wanted it, and Meta gave everyone the ability to have it.

>I agree that these traits are human and were there before social media, but amplifying, gamifying and exploiting addiction is reprehensible.

I never said that it wasn't reprehensible.

>Meta has warped society to think that life is meaningless without affirmation.

No, Meta just amplified it to the nth degree. Humanity has always put an outsized emphases on such affirmation, whether it's reputation, status, belonging, approval, prestige, attractiveness, respectability, yadda yadda yadda. Consumer culture and mass media were already firmly entrenched and doing a damn good job of turning those into visible measures of personal worth in the form of wealth, possessions, beauty standards, popularity, professional success, celebrity... I could go on and on.

Meta just put a big ol' bright spotlight on the worst aspects that we were already amplifying, and perhaps sped-run that amplification.

>I care about facts.

>Both cases are simply stating facts...

Sure, unless (as I pointed out in my other response) we're playing fast and loose with what actually constitutes "facts".

>At the same time he has monumental successes that nobody, ever, has achieved.

"Nobody ever" doesn't really feel accurate here.

>Worlds safest car (multiple times)...

According to which body? Tesla's interpretation of NHTSA data? Some other organization? Did other cars prior to Tesla's inception obtain this title "multiple times"?

>... worlds highest selling car (model y)...

In 2023, the Y peaked at ~1.22 million. In 1923, the Model T sold ~2.09 million.

>... car of the year...

Numerous bodies label things "car of the year", and many cars were named that before and after Teslas were produced.

Of course you would! I'm sure you'd see some firefighters or arsonists who would respond in such a manner. It's a very natural thing for some people to find a positive of some kind in things that many people find to be a negative.

My buffer is below that, and I've absolutely dealt with missing deadlines such as those in the past, yet this mindset and approach to the world has managed to keep me sane throughout. :)

That's not to say that things aren't easier or harder at different levels, but you can still approach life from that perspective no matter where you are at. I've always lived a life far from the the income levels that are common around these parts, and this is how I've to sustained myself and remained happy.

Sure! Uncertainty is a spectrum, and there are certainly moments where it's not a nice feeling. I'm a father, and I'd be lying if I said I haven't had those feelings over the years. My (making it very clear here that one's mileage will obviously vary) approach?

I don't know what's going to happen. Maybe I'll need to figure out childcare, maybe I won't. Maybe I'll have food to eat this weekend, maybe I won't. Maybe my job will go away next year, maybe it won't. Today, there's work, and I'll do that work as best I can. Today, there's evidence things are changing, and I can be aware of that. Today, I can do something prudent to make myself more resilient towards whatever may or may not happen. Tomorrow, if something happens, I can react accordingly.

The mind wants certainty, but that's not always available, so I observe the "wanting". The best I can do is act based on what's in front of me, and sitting in the negative emotions around existential thoughts doesn't help me, nor my family (it's natural to have them, but I acknowledge them and let them pass by). The best I can do is to do. If things change, I change. Everything in nature/life is ephemeral, and I have done my best throughout my life to set myself up to be as adaptable as possible.

Edit: To reduce this and get a bit Tao-ish, you don't need to know the exact shape of the river downstream as long as you're capable of steering when you get there.

I suppose I am one of the people who could technically be lumped into the "hate AI" category, and yet I find myself incredibly comfortable with the uncertainty around where things are going. Perhaps it's because, as I previously mentioned, I have always enjoyed the feeling of uncertainty (and I recognize that's not the norm for most), but it's also because the entire thing feels so hyperbolic from all angles that I can't help but assume that whatever happens will be somewhere "in the middle" of all the rhetoric everyone's spouting from everywhere.

I also have a very, "The world's gonna do what the world's gonna do, the best I can do is find my path through and flow with it," attitude about, well... most things. Maybe that helps? Maybe I'm talking out of my ass rn? I'm unsure! :)

Perhaps it doesn't come naturally for others and is therefore a bit of a struggle to shift into, but I love being unsure. It's great. It's a thing that's totally okay to be. The reality of life is that we're all unsure about a great deal, and it's quite a nice feeling to acknowledge uncertainty, sit within it and feel okay.

>Plus having the info part of a LLM makes it immediately available to literally billions.

Help me understand how. Not only are these LLMs expressly prohibited from specifically regurgitating copyright works if the users asks them to, but they habitually hallucinate or paraphrase things wrong.

If they won't regurgitate the copyrighted text verbatim, and are known to be confidently incorrect and hallucinatory, I'm struggling to see how these texts are "immediately available to literally billions".

And I ask this as someone who has had LLMs give me incorrect assertions about the contents of books.

Are they profiting from these subscriptions yet?

And I've spent the last few days irritated that everything I ask Gemini is answered with something that's blatantly wrong and I'm not even a subject matter expert. A quick Google search for the same questions gives plenty of results that counter what the LLM gave me.

YMMV.

That's just relative, no? Surely people with children pack more, but the concept is the same - you pack a lot the first time you travel with them, and then narrow it down the more you travel with them.

(Said as a parent)

>Old reddit is the only "discussion forum" experience you could get on web.

Not really. I visit multiple hobby/niche-specific discussion forums daily that are either still running on phpBB, or are setup in a similar style. They're out there, and they've still got a much better experience than anything Web 2.0 and beyond.

Who is "we"? What of the people who are already very comfortable and happy living humble lives without keeping up with the current cutting edge of technology? The person content to sit on the shore and fish at a slow pace? To wander off into the woods and read a book for a few days?

Must they "accelerate" and "keep up"? Do they truly suffer if they don't? If they're happy doing so now, will they be unhappy in the future if they continue down their chosen paths?

What do these "dark ages" look like to you?

Europe is guaranteed to "slip into the dark ages" if they don't keep up at exactly the same pace, or faster?

AI will accelerate everything? Does everything need to be accelerated? If so, why does everything need to move faster?

There is far more to the world than AI.

I never said it's wrong to want life to be better. Life is life. If someone finds enjoyment in a different way or pace of life, that's fine. The world's gonna do what the world's gonna do - some people want to be at the forefront, while others want to go with the flow or chill out.

That's okay. :)

Why do we always need to be innovating? What's wrong with being content with what is?

Not to defend the down votes, but it's not just one thing. The article praises the attitudes of Mexicans and French folk, both of which are also capitalist countries.

It's capitalism to an extent, sure, but it's also the culture of a country.

Agreed, re: placing value squarely on productivity.

The thing is, we're all eventually irrelevant. That's the way the universe works. Every single one of us, after enough time. Claiming we're "doomed" to it is just ego talking.

YMMV, but nearly every one I read has a glaringly incorrect comment. I frequently research off-trail mountaineering routes and the incorrect bullshit it confidently spouts at the top of a list of results (results which very much counter the AI overview) is liable to end up getting someone hurt, lost, or worse.