5 ms·

I don’t think that design goal in and of itself is toxic enough to warrant the connotation of the label “addiction peddling”. In YouTube’s case, it sounds like

by nyxxie 8y ago

I don’t think that design goal in and of itself is toxic enough to warrant the connotation of the label “addiction peddling”. In YouTube’s case, it sounds like their recommendation engine is designed to simply reccomend videos people might like. YouTube obviously wants people on the site, but no user is being fooled here; they want to watch cool videos, YouTube recommends cool videos to them. Everyone here is fully consenting and benefiting in this relationship. It’s the outliers who seem to be the problem, and considering YouTube reaches billions of people without incident I think our threshold for “this is a problem” should also change.

aznumeric 8y ago
In the article it clearly states: 'We designed YT’s AI to increase the time people spend online, because it leads to more ads'. They designed it to increase the time spent. It does not 'sound like' they designed it to 'recommend videos people might like', it clearly states 'time spent'. There is no room for speculation, unless you question the correctness of the author's statement.
- kodablah 8y ago
  You can design for more than one thing, especially when complimentary. Why is there no room to speculate that they also designed for what people want? Why do I have to question the author's correctness to do so? Why mix all these words like this and tell other people what they can or can't speculate about?
  - aznumeric 8y ago
    Because the commenter did not add to the author's statement, but offered a different view on how YT's AI was designed. This particular comment section comments on the article, it is not a general discussion on YT's algorithm. Therefore if the author of the article, who is also one of the authors of the AI in question, writes a very clear statement on how the AI was designed, and the commenter then writes that it sounds like the AI is designed differently, then how can that mean anything else but questioning the correctness of the author's statement.
- nyxxie 8y ago
  Yes, and that's one side of the relationship. The other side is that YouTube provides a free platform for anyone to upload and watch videos, and it even suggests videos it thinks you might like. Everyone here benefits. I fail to see anything as nefarious as the term "addiction peddlers" and hard drug metaphors would imply. The problems described in the text sound like they're mostly caused by mental illness and/or lack of personal restraint, both of which are and should be outside of the scope of YouTube to solve (unless we want to start accept third parties robbing individuals of agency "for their own good").
  - aznumeric 8y ago
    'We designed YT’s AI to increase the time people spend online, because it leads to more ads' Would you treat your friends like that ? Say, a friend asks you to recommend them a good video on software development. Are you going to optimize your recommendation as to make them take the longest time possible to achieve their goal ?
    - nyxxie 8y ago
      >Are you going to optimize your recommendation as to make them take the longest time possible to achieve their goal ? No, I'd link them to relevant videos that helped me in the past, and then maybe link them some more later on to help them further increase their skills after learning the basics. These hypothetical videos were interesting and helpful to me, and I figure that since I found them interesting maybe my friend will too. That's what it sounds like YouTube is doing, only they get money.
- hokus 8y ago
  DIY = bad Employable skill = bad Travel = bad Family = bad activism = bad traditional news media = good entertainment = good video games = really really good
kakarot 8y ago
A crack addict isn't being fooled when he buys crack. A lot of crack addicts think crack is cool.
CuriousSkeptic 8y ago
I recenently found my self curious about Antarctica. Put that word in the YouTube search to see what would come up. The first few screens of suggestions contained nothing but obvious trolling and conspiracy theory videos. YouTube most defenitley does not optimize for videos I “might like”
- saulrh 8y ago
  Not knowing anything about the guts of youtube, I'd bet that it actually does optimize for videos it thinks you might like. Unfortunately, it doesn't know anything about you so it assumes you're a random denizen of the internet. Even more unfortunately, far more of the internet is 4chan than HN. 95% of the subreddits I've seen would answer a simple query about antarctica with ten pages of obvious trolling and "ironic" conspiracy-theory videos. And that's as good as it'll ever be because further improvement would require detailed personalization that they can't implement because the bad PR would destroy them.
- jakeogh 8y ago
  :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSUXMPqNLbg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSUXMPqNLbg
RowanH 8y ago
I think YT is great for 'hobby rabbit holes' as I call them... Starting at a certain topic and exploring all the weird and wonderful content about it. My knowledge has certainly expanded all the more from YT than without... Much better than mind numbing TV on the couch.
b_tterc_p 8y ago
YouTube optimizes for things you might watch, not things you might like.

by nyxxie 8y ago

aznumeric 8y ago

In the article it clearly states: 'We designed YT’s AI to increase the time people spend online, because it leads to more ads'. They designed it to increase the time spent. It does not 'sound like' they designed it to 'recommend videos people might like', it clearly states 'time spent'. There is no room for speculation, unless you question the correctness of the author's statement.

kodablah 8y ago
You can design for more than one thing, especially when complimentary. Why is there no room to speculate that they also designed for what people want? Why do I have to question the author's correctness to do so? Why mix all these words like this and tell other people what they can or can't speculate about?
- aznumeric 8y ago
  Because the commenter did not add to the author's statement, but offered a different view on how YT's AI was designed. This particular comment section comments on the article, it is not a general discussion on YT's algorithm. Therefore if the author of the article, who is also one of the authors of the AI in question, writes a very clear statement on how the AI was designed, and the commenter then writes that it sounds like the AI is designed differently, then how can that mean anything else but questioning the correctness of the author's statement.
nyxxie 8y ago
Yes, and that's one side of the relationship. The other side is that YouTube provides a free platform for anyone to upload and watch videos, and it even suggests videos it thinks you might like. Everyone here benefits. I fail to see anything as nefarious as the term "addiction peddlers" and hard drug metaphors would imply. The problems described in the text sound like they're mostly caused by mental illness and/or lack of personal restraint, both of which are and should be outside of the scope of YouTube to solve (unless we want to start accept third parties robbing individuals of agency "for their own good").
- aznumeric 8y ago
  'We designed YT’s AI to increase the time people spend online, because it leads to more ads' Would you treat your friends like that ? Say, a friend asks you to recommend them a good video on software development. Are you going to optimize your recommendation as to make them take the longest time possible to achieve their goal ?
  - nyxxie 8y ago
    >Are you going to optimize your recommendation as to make them take the longest time possible to achieve their goal ? No, I'd link them to relevant videos that helped me in the past, and then maybe link them some more later on to help them further increase their skills after learning the basics. These hypothetical videos were interesting and helpful to me, and I figure that since I found them interesting maybe my friend will too. That's what it sounds like YouTube is doing, only they get money.
hokus 8y ago
DIY = bad Employable skill = bad Travel = bad Family = bad activism = bad traditional news media = good entertainment = good video games = really really good

kakarot 8y ago

A crack addict isn't being fooled when he buys crack. A lot of crack addicts think crack is cool.

CuriousSkeptic 8y ago

I recenently found my self curious about Antarctica. Put that word in the YouTube search to see what would come up. The first few screens of suggestions contained nothing but obvious trolling and conspiracy theory videos. YouTube most defenitley does not optimize for videos I “might like”

saulrh 8y ago
Not knowing anything about the guts of youtube, I'd bet that it actually does optimize for videos it thinks you might like. Unfortunately, it doesn't know anything about you so it assumes you're a random denizen of the internet. Even more unfortunately, far more of the internet is 4chan than HN. 95% of the subreddits I've seen would answer a simple query about antarctica with ten pages of obvious trolling and "ironic" conspiracy-theory videos. And that's as good as it'll ever be because further improvement would require detailed personalization that they can't implement because the bad PR would destroy them.
jakeogh 8y ago
:) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSUXMPqNLbg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSUXMPqNLbg

RowanH 8y ago

I think YT is great for 'hobby rabbit holes' as I call them... Starting at a certain topic and exploring all the weird and wonderful content about it. My knowledge has certainly expanded all the more from YT than without... Much better than mind numbing TV on the couch.

b_tterc_p 8y ago

YouTube optimizes for things you might watch, not things you might like.