3 ms·
This has got to be some sort of fallacy. It rings similar to the "if evolution selected for good traits, why can't we fly and shoot lasers out of our eyes?" Ye
by TheDong 8y ago
This has got to be some sort of fallacy. It rings similar to the "if evolution selected for good traits, why can't we fly and shoot lasers out of our eyes?"
Yes, its to their benefit if their users have money. No, I don't think there's any chance that any company is able to optimize for someone gaining a middle-class life that meaningfully.
Companies do small-scale user studies and measure things like engagement and increased clicks on a small scale. They do not perfectly capture their user's income and spending level for many years and correlate that well enough with the company's auto-suggestions that said suggestions optimize for that very macro goal over the very micro measurements they make.
I think it's very hard to imagine Google successfully optimizing itself to meaningfully lead do that outcome for users, just as it's very hard to imagine humans evolving the ability to fly.
- vl 8y agoCurrent recommendations systems for FB, Google/YouTube have switched from models that try to increase immediate engagement to models that try to increase retention because it turned out that optimizing for immediate engagement decreases retention. (Latter is obviously much harder ML task requiring Q-learning, longer data series, etc.) In other words companies choose to sacrifice immediate revenue in order to increase long-term (optimally life-time) revenue from each particular user. You can see it an example of early precursor of ML that shapes user behavior: learning what motivates user to return and then displaying it.