5 ms·

>I hope that we can grow beyond changing ourselves to fit the algorithm I personally think you are in for a very rude awakening. This is exactly what people ar

>I hope that we can grow beyond changing ourselves to fit the algorithm I personally think you are in for a very rude awakening. This is exactly what people are trying not to do with Machine Learning. It is always, almost, about profiling you, about finding out who you are in order to offer you what you already know, to limit your horizon, to "tailor" your "experience" and the span of possibilities. As a very technical fellow told me: "when you read three political news in a row we set a badge, you are now politically minded." This, sadly, doesn't fit your yearning for us growing "beyond changing ourselves to fit the algorithm." My prediction is that it will get worst before it gets any better at all.

mattbierner 9y ago
Yes I think you are right. Just today for example, many people seemed encouraged when Zuckerberg said facebook would have AI to effectively and automatically block hate speech in 5-10 years. And while it's hard to be, "oh no think of the poor hate speech!" that tech is actually very scary when you start thinking about how much it can be abused. The first thing we'd probably do with cuttlefish suits anyways is stick ads all over them. Then the company that makes them would get acquired
- ILikeConemowk 9y ago
  >oh no think of the poor hate speech This is an easy target. Whenever you get that argument you go all: "it's a bit unsettling that you find censor-happy human-out-of-the-loop algorimhms good, but I thank you for you honesty." Then you recall that you are a programmer: "you know what, I should definitely program an algorithm that censors all positive talk about censor-happy human-out-of-the-loop algorithms. Thanks for the idea."
  - terminado 9y ago
    Blind spots are bad news for situational awareness though. The corollary is 30 ton tractor trailer changing lanes on the highway, and concluding that there's no traffic because it would prefer not to see it. Censoring the rear view mirrors is a bad idea no matter how much you hate what you see in them.
    - plurgid 9y ago
      Since the hot mess that was 2016 on Facebook went down, I've been pondering this a lot. Facebook was an effective rear view mirror, for a whole lot of us. The more savvy among us could see the storm clouds gathering on the horizon literally almost since the beginning , but certainly by late 2014/early 2015 it was plainly obvious that psyops were afoot, though even to a lot of plugged in hackernews type people the full-blown industrial scale of it all wasn't immediately obvious. That's whats so insidious. It's the model. It's the first person perspective that facebook locks you into. It looks like reality, and it contains people you know, but it is not real. You don't really know who wrote what, who liked what, etc. There's no global view of facebook for a user. I think that's the problem. The first person view that you're locked into with facebook, makes it trivial to manufacture the appearance of group consensus when no such thing exists in the real world (if you have access to the backend). The problem really is facebook, not the concept of social media all together. The problem is also that Facebook knew what it was doing. They were building a political doomsday machine from the get-go, they knew that's what they were doing, and they designed specifically to that goal for a decade with practically limitless funding.
  - unknownkadath 9y ago
    There's a science fiction novel inside of your comment that I would like to read.
    - ILikeConemowk 9y ago
      Is this a suggestion or light sarcasm? Perhaps was my comment too hypothetical? :]
      - unknownkadath 8y ago
        100% serious suggestion! :)
- primitur 9y ago
  >cuttlefish suits Thankfully, this sort of thing is exactly what the Internet was designed for ..
- mycoborea 9y ago
  >And while it's hard to be, "oh no think of the poor hate speech!" that tech is actually very scary when you start thinking about how much it can be abused. Of course it will be abused, and it will be abused from the outset. The powers that be already define hate speech vs dissent, propaganda vs news, terrorists vs. freedom fighters, scientism vs science, et cetera. Big Tech and Western governments together control of the flow of information. Previously, the blue-flavored regime held that control and abused it terribly. Now, the red-flavored regime has it, and people are finally noticing. God help us if people far, far worse gain that control in the future and start defining what is unacceptable speech.
glaberficken 9y ago
Which makes me think... ...would someone be willing to develop a content recommendation engine that filters out all the bullshit on the web? Especially valuable would be one that is also immune to "filter bubble" effects.
- sametmax 9y ago
  Stumble upon was kinda great for that.
- gambiting 9y ago
  >> that filters out all the bullshit on the web? The problem is that your definition of bullshit might be different than mine, so any filter you come up with will have issues.
  - glaberficken 9y ago
    >"your definition of bullshit might be different than mine" Yes of course, but maybe for such a tool we could agree first on a definition of bullshit and try to stick to it?
- jerf 9y ago
  It is impossible to be immune to filter bubble effects. The only way to be immune is to not filter at all (can't be in a filter bubble if you don't have a filter), but you can't do that. Even keeping up entirely with lil' ol' HN would tax you, and I don't know how many zeros to put in the 0.0000001% but HN is not very much of "the internet". If you think you've got yourself into a situation where you're immune to the filter bubble, that just means you've created one so comfortable that you never get prodded by anything.
- alanfalcon 9y ago
  I think you have to be exposed to the bullshit. I explicitly follow people on Twitter I strongly disagree with; that sometimes outright outrage and disgust me. I don’t interact with them, but I read what they’re saying and what people in their filter bubble say back to them. That’s my best solution to trying to escape too small a filter bubble of my own.
mtgx 9y ago
Also, China is moving in the exact opposite direction with the Perfect Citizen system by trying to change people's behavior with the help of algorithms. Senator Grassley also said yesterday at the very end of the Zuckerberg hearing that he hopes someone with Zuck's influence and other such platforms would do something to "reduce the cynicism people have towards Congress." That sounded pretty scary. I get that the mainstream media (and more recently Facebook propaganda, but this is definitely a much older issue) is partly to blame for polarizing America, but asking companies to actively try to influence how people think about their governments sounds like the wrong direction to take to me. I also don't think it's any better than say Fox News trying to polarize people. https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/meetings/facebook-social-media-privacy-and-the-use-and-abuse-of-data https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/meetings/facebook-social-me...
- ILikeConemowk 9y ago
  >but asking companies to actively try to influence how people think about their governments This is what many don't understand, or don't want to understand, this is why some big players are pissed at Facebook, very very pissed. She was supposed to win, they had to help her win. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/56638#efmAAGAA2ADoAD0AElAE1AFCAFRAHdAI2 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/56638#efmAAGAA2... https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/19070 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/19070 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/15092 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/15092 --- From:sheryl@fb.com To: john.podesta@gmail.com Date: 2016-01-02 22:07 Subject: RE: Happy New Year I am thrilled at the progress Hillary is making. [...] 2015 was challenging, but we ended in a good place thanks to your help and support. Look forward to working with you to elect the first woman President of the United States. Have a great New Year. -John
  - Volt 9y ago
    Is that the proof? How weak.
- John_KZ 9y ago
  For me the realization that politicians just accept and use facebook for their own means instead of being opposed to it was a really bitter realization. I was hoping that when they started realizing the potential, they'd feel threatened and require it to cease working that way. Instead they all run PR campaigns on social media, and they probably collect data on their voters too if they can. It's just too disgusting to bear. Not just the US either, this is happening all across Europe.

mattbierner 9y ago

Yes I think you are right. Just today for example, many people seemed encouraged when Zuckerberg said facebook would have AI to effectively and automatically block hate speech in 5-10 years. And while it's hard to be, "oh no think of the poor hate speech!" that tech is actually very scary when you start thinking about how much it can be abused. The first thing we'd probably do with cuttlefish suits anyways is stick ads all over them. Then the company that makes them would get acquired

ILikeConemowk 9y ago
>oh no think of the poor hate speech This is an easy target. Whenever you get that argument you go all: "it's a bit unsettling that you find censor-happy human-out-of-the-loop algorimhms good, but I thank you for you honesty." Then you recall that you are a programmer: "you know what, I should definitely program an algorithm that censors all positive talk about censor-happy human-out-of-the-loop algorithms. Thanks for the idea."
- terminado 9y ago
  Blind spots are bad news for situational awareness though. The corollary is 30 ton tractor trailer changing lanes on the highway, and concluding that there's no traffic because it would prefer not to see it. Censoring the rear view mirrors is a bad idea no matter how much you hate what you see in them.
  - plurgid 9y ago
    Since the hot mess that was 2016 on Facebook went down, I've been pondering this a lot. Facebook was an effective rear view mirror, for a whole lot of us. The more savvy among us could see the storm clouds gathering on the horizon literally almost since the beginning , but certainly by late 2014/early 2015 it was plainly obvious that psyops were afoot, though even to a lot of plugged in hackernews type people the full-blown industrial scale of it all wasn't immediately obvious. That's whats so insidious. It's the model. It's the first person perspective that facebook locks you into. It looks like reality, and it contains people you know, but it is not real. You don't really know who wrote what, who liked what, etc. There's no global view of facebook for a user. I think that's the problem. The first person view that you're locked into with facebook, makes it trivial to manufacture the appearance of group consensus when no such thing exists in the real world (if you have access to the backend). The problem really is facebook, not the concept of social media all together. The problem is also that Facebook knew what it was doing. They were building a political doomsday machine from the get-go, they knew that's what they were doing, and they designed specifically to that goal for a decade with practically limitless funding.
- unknownkadath 9y ago
  There's a science fiction novel inside of your comment that I would like to read.
  - ILikeConemowk 9y ago
    Is this a suggestion or light sarcasm? Perhaps was my comment too hypothetical? :]
    - unknownkadath 8y ago
      100% serious suggestion! :)
primitur 9y ago
>cuttlefish suits Thankfully, this sort of thing is exactly what the Internet was designed for ..
mycoborea 9y ago
>And while it's hard to be, "oh no think of the poor hate speech!" that tech is actually very scary when you start thinking about how much it can be abused. Of course it will be abused, and it will be abused from the outset. The powers that be already define hate speech vs dissent, propaganda vs news, terrorists vs. freedom fighters, scientism vs science, et cetera. Big Tech and Western governments together control of the flow of information. Previously, the blue-flavored regime held that control and abused it terribly. Now, the red-flavored regime has it, and people are finally noticing. God help us if people far, far worse gain that control in the future and start defining what is unacceptable speech.

glaberficken 9y ago

Which makes me think... ...would someone be willing to develop a content recommendation engine that filters out all the bullshit on the web? Especially valuable would be one that is also immune to "filter bubble" effects.

sametmax 9y ago
Stumble upon was kinda great for that.
gambiting 9y ago
>> that filters out all the bullshit on the web? The problem is that your definition of bullshit might be different than mine, so any filter you come up with will have issues.
- glaberficken 9y ago
  >"your definition of bullshit might be different than mine" Yes of course, but maybe for such a tool we could agree first on a definition of bullshit and try to stick to it?
jerf 9y ago
It is impossible to be immune to filter bubble effects. The only way to be immune is to not filter at all (can't be in a filter bubble if you don't have a filter), but you can't do that. Even keeping up entirely with lil' ol' HN would tax you, and I don't know how many zeros to put in the 0.0000001% but HN is not very much of "the internet". If you think you've got yourself into a situation where you're immune to the filter bubble, that just means you've created one so comfortable that you never get prodded by anything.
alanfalcon 9y ago
I think you have to be exposed to the bullshit. I explicitly follow people on Twitter I strongly disagree with; that sometimes outright outrage and disgust me. I don’t interact with them, but I read what they’re saying and what people in their filter bubble say back to them. That’s my best solution to trying to escape too small a filter bubble of my own.

mtgx 9y ago

Also, China is moving in the exact opposite direction with the Perfect Citizen system by trying to change people's behavior with the help of algorithms. Senator Grassley also said yesterday at the very end of the Zuckerberg hearing that he hopes someone with Zuck's influence and other such platforms would do something to "reduce the cynicism people have towards Congress." That sounded pretty scary. I get that the mainstream media (and more recently Facebook propaganda, but this is definitely a much older issue) is partly to blame for polarizing America, but asking companies to actively try to influence how people think about their governments sounds like the wrong direction to take to me. I also don't think it's any better than say Fox News trying to polarize people. https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/meetings/facebook-social-media-privacy-and-the-use-and-abuse-of-data https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/meetings/facebook-social-me...

ILikeConemowk 9y ago
>but asking companies to actively try to influence how people think about their governments This is what many don't understand, or don't want to understand, this is why some big players are pissed at Facebook, very very pissed. She was supposed to win, they had to help her win. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/56638#efmAAGAA2ADoAD0AElAE1AFCAFRAHdAI2 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/56638#efmAAGAA2... https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/19070 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/19070 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/15092 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/15092 --- From:sheryl@fb.com To: john.podesta@gmail.com Date: 2016-01-02 22:07 Subject: RE: Happy New Year I am thrilled at the progress Hillary is making. [...] 2015 was challenging, but we ended in a good place thanks to your help and support. Look forward to working with you to elect the first woman President of the United States. Have a great New Year. -John
- Volt 9y ago
  Is that the proof? How weak.
John_KZ 9y ago
For me the realization that politicians just accept and use facebook for their own means instead of being opposed to it was a really bitter realization. I was hoping that when they started realizing the potential, they'd feel threatened and require it to cease working that way. Instead they all run PR campaigns on social media, and they probably collect data on their voters too if they can. It's just too disgusting to bear. Not just the US either, this is happening all across Europe.