6 ms·

I think Doctorow is largely right about how this uncritical acceptance of tech "magic powers" actually strengthens them, the 'rather evil than incompetent' argu

I think Doctorow is largely right about how this uncritical acceptance of tech "magic powers" actually strengthens them, the 'rather evil than incompetent' argument works. As he alludes to in the piece Karp and Thiel used to actively push for PR that presents Palantir as this sort of omniponent surveillance super-tool because it actually makes it seem more intimidating. Criticism of 'precrime' tech or robo judges should be directed towards how goddamn stupid it is to direct machine learning algorithms that were made for perception at tasks that involve complex cognitive and ethical human judgements. Cambridge Analytica was a good example of this as well. The press fell over themselves to characterise their technology as some sort of election tipping, mind controlling super tool. They probably loved it. In reality there's not even any scientific backing for their targeting and it most likely did barely anything, they just wanted to look like James Bond's Spectre. edit: another thing the post made me think of is how much the tech sector loves Yuval Noah Harari. He once said he's surprised by it but I'm absolutely not, because he basically constantly tells them how omnipotent and all-powerful they are. There's actually a fantastic scene in The Young Pope about this (a satirical show about the internal workings of the Catholic Church) > Do you know how many books have been written about me? > Seventeen. > Eighteen. The last one's going to press next week, and it's got the best title of all. > Which is? >The Man Behind the Scenes. I suggested it myself. > Who wrote it? > Manna, that leftist reporter. > That means it'going to be critical of you, Your Eminence. > Of course, those are the best. They turn you into a legend.

planet-and-halo 5y ago
Aside from how absolutely sad the humorlessness of society these days is, it's also a catastrophe that we've taken humor out of the critical tool belt. H.L. Mencken has a great quote about it, something along the lines of the most good being done in the history of man by people throwing cats into temples.
godelski 5y ago
They say to never attribute to malice what can easily be attributed to incompetence or stupidity. I think the extreme version of this is when emergence through stupidity appears to be a global conspiracy of super rich/geniuses. Humans do love stories and legends. They distract us from the truth which is that the world is exceedingly mundane.
- philipov 5y ago
  You speak of Hanlon's Razor. There is a corollary called Grey's Law: "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice"
  - TeMPOraL 5y ago
    Contrast with Hanlon's Handgun though: "Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by systemic incentives promoting malice." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21691282 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21691282
paox 5y ago
Dude you misunderstand. So does Mr. Doctrow. Everyone who has shelled out cash for marketing and advertising knows its crap. People who work in adtech know its crap. Politicians know. CEOs know. They pay the bills. BUT its better than the previous crap and all other alternatives thanks to more data. Which is why anyone who want to influence, persuade or control others sits 24*7 on social media. When it comes to the Game of Persuasion if everyone is using crap tools who ever uses it more has an advantage. Momentarily atleast untill someone else has more energy or outspends you. Attacking the crapiness of the tool wont reduce disinformation. Billions have been spent on reducing the crapiness and its unsolvable, because you never reduce the number of mindlessly ambitious chimps, who will use whatever crap tools exist, to gain influence, persuade and control others.
- simonh 5y ago
  Right, the point is you have to be in the game. If you were to pull out because the game is crap and ceded it to your opposition, it wouldn't be crap anymore. They'd dominate the channel and own the signal. Better to pay your money, keep in the game and spoil it for everybody than let anyone else win. Also Corey correctly identifies, but dismisses the real power of FB and similar tech, which is connecting people with stuff they're interested in. "Seen in that light, “online radicalization” stops looking like the result of mind control, instead showing itself to be a kind of homecoming — finding the people who share your interests, a common online experience we can all relate to." We know this. Algorithmically tuning your feed into torrents of stuff you already like is the issue. He is right that yes we can relate to this. The reason we use search is to find stuff we know we want more of, but being dumb chimps the uncomfortable fact is we don't always know what's good for us. Hence Oxycontin, it feels great until you depend on it to feel anything at all, and then you're dead. Or slagging off humans with vaginas for being TERFs. Or storming the capitol building chanting "shoot him with his own gun". The problem then is, who gets to decide what's good for us? Maybe it's our right to die or become brainwashed however we choose. I don't know, I've got no easy answers for you here.
remarkEon 5y ago
Kind of off topic, but that show (The Young Pope Season 1) is very very well written, and is a good commentary on how to understand culture and realize how keeping things mysterious and hidden is a way to seed obsession. This scene[0] in particular is a good one. [0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hY8C3cIMR4o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hY8C3cIMR4o
qsort 5y ago
Yes, I totally agree. I guess it's human nature to prefer attacking on a moral angle as opposed to a pragmatic one (even though the latter is usually more effective). We see this all the time even outside the tech sector, people will cry "omg you're such a racist" sooner than "you don't even understand numbers, you bozo".
- grasshopperpurp 5y ago
  I think it's clearly counterproductive to shout racist at everything; however, people who don't understand the numbers don't (generally) use numbers to define their stances. They choose what to believe in based on other beliefs, and they justify them with funny math. The thing I like about your insult vs "you're racist" is that you're attacking what someone is doing, rather than what they are. When confronting someone for being wrong, it's a lot more constructive to say, 'Hey, you're wrong about this, and this is why,' than it is to say, 'You're a moron (or a bad person), and this is why.' It's also more accurate. Labeling is helpful for navigating thousands of people in our communities/millions online, but keep those labels to yourself, and be ready to question them. During confrontation, though, it will cause the other side to shut down, and that's where we are. We're more concerned with defining each other as others than working together to find commonalities and building on points of agreement. I'd just add that significant power imbalance significantly changes things and how we ought to attack disagreement.
  - qsort 5y ago
    Yes, the point I think you're getting at is how many bad actors will use the aesthetics of rationality without the substance of it, and that's equally irrational. Like the screens of fake code from B-movie hacking scenes, they look like they mean something, but there's nothing behind the surface. However, in such cases I think it's actually even more harmful to resort to those accusations as a first resort. Those arguments are usually wrong in at least two ways: wrong as in "incoherent, logically flawed", and wrong as in "defending reprehensible behavior". Failing to point out the logical flaws can lead others to believe "he's unlikable but he's right", another type of posture that these people just adore acting out. There absolutely exist genuinely racist, sexist, etc. people, and one should definitely call them out when appropriate. But those terms are very susceptible to "cry wolf" type of scenarios. If everything is the worst thing ever, then nothing is. Being more cautious with how one plays those cards allows them to be more effective when needed. I completely agree with you about labeling, I couldn't have said it better myself.
boldslogan 5y ago
the criticism of C.A. do you have any further reading? i recall a podcast where they interviewed one of the founders ( his name was something comically evil like last name Spectre) and he was saying it was just consulting mumbojumbo and it didnt work. but now I cant find it.
decasteve 5y ago
> Cambridge Analytica was a good example of this as well. The press fell over themselves to characterise their technology as some sort of election tipping, mind controlling super tool. They probably loved it. In reality there's not even any scientific backing for their targeting and it most likely did barely anything, they just wanted to look like James Bond's Spectre. Reading what’s still out there about Cambridge Analytica ignores the findings of the UK’s Information Commissioner which indeed found they were basically throwing data at scikit-learn hoping for a result — the script kiddie version of machine learning. How many of the journalists gone back to correct their misinformation on the topic? Many of the articles are still out there in their original form and those hacks are still making hay on the subject.
- long_time_gone 5y ago
  == How many of the journalists gone back to correct their misinformation on the topic?== What was their misinformation? It seems like they were right about Cambridge Analytica’s goals and tactics. You are claiming their technology wasn’t great, but that doesn’t change how they obtained it or what capabilities they were selling.
marcus_holmes 5y ago
Remember, there's also a powerful tendency to absolve people of the consequences of their actions by painting them as victims of powerful corporate mind-control. If you eat fast food for every meal, is your obesity your fault, or are you a victim of food corporations' incredibly effective advertising? If you smoke a pack a day, despite all the public information that smoking is harmful, is that your fault or the fault of the tobacco industry's advertising? If Doctorow is right, and advertising is ineffective, there's a lot of people who will have to accept that their situation is a product of their own actions. For a lot of people, this is "victim-blaming" and unacceptable. It's a lot easier to have large corporations being evil powerful baddies who control us and therefore absolve us of responsibility for our actions.
- harpiaharpyja 5y ago
  There's no way to have any power in a situation without taking the perspective that your actions shape your situation though.
  - marcus_holmes 5y ago
    Yes, and that lack of power is a feature not a bug for some people.

planet-and-halo 5y ago

Aside from how absolutely sad the humorlessness of society these days is, it's also a catastrophe that we've taken humor out of the critical tool belt. H.L. Mencken has a great quote about it, something along the lines of the most good being done in the history of man by people throwing cats into temples.

godelski 5y ago

They say to never attribute to malice what can easily be attributed to incompetence or stupidity. I think the extreme version of this is when emergence through stupidity appears to be a global conspiracy of super rich/geniuses. Humans do love stories and legends. They distract us from the truth which is that the world is exceedingly mundane.

philipov 5y ago
You speak of Hanlon's Razor. There is a corollary called Grey's Law: "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice"
- TeMPOraL 5y ago
  Contrast with Hanlon's Handgun though: "Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by systemic incentives promoting malice." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21691282 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21691282

paox 5y ago

Dude you misunderstand. So does Mr. Doctrow. Everyone who has shelled out cash for marketing and advertising knows its crap. People who work in adtech know its crap. Politicians know. CEOs know. They pay the bills. BUT its better than the previous crap and all other alternatives thanks to more data. Which is why anyone who want to influence, persuade or control others sits 24*7 on social media. When it comes to the Game of Persuasion if everyone is using crap tools who ever uses it more has an advantage. Momentarily atleast untill someone else has more energy or outspends you. Attacking the crapiness of the tool wont reduce disinformation. Billions have been spent on reducing the crapiness and its unsolvable, because you never reduce the number of mindlessly ambitious chimps, who will use whatever crap tools exist, to gain influence, persuade and control others.

simonh 5y ago
Right, the point is you have to be in the game. If you were to pull out because the game is crap and ceded it to your opposition, it wouldn't be crap anymore. They'd dominate the channel and own the signal. Better to pay your money, keep in the game and spoil it for everybody than let anyone else win. Also Corey correctly identifies, but dismisses the real power of FB and similar tech, which is connecting people with stuff they're interested in. "Seen in that light, “online radicalization” stops looking like the result of mind control, instead showing itself to be a kind of homecoming — finding the people who share your interests, a common online experience we can all relate to." We know this. Algorithmically tuning your feed into torrents of stuff you already like is the issue. He is right that yes we can relate to this. The reason we use search is to find stuff we know we want more of, but being dumb chimps the uncomfortable fact is we don't always know what's good for us. Hence Oxycontin, it feels great until you depend on it to feel anything at all, and then you're dead. Or slagging off humans with vaginas for being TERFs. Or storming the capitol building chanting "shoot him with his own gun". The problem then is, who gets to decide what's good for us? Maybe it's our right to die or become brainwashed however we choose. I don't know, I've got no easy answers for you here.

remarkEon 5y ago

Kind of off topic, but that show (The Young Pope Season 1) is very very well written, and is a good commentary on how to understand culture and realize how keeping things mysterious and hidden is a way to seed obsession. This scene[0] in particular is a good one. [0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hY8C3cIMR4o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hY8C3cIMR4o

qsort 5y ago

Yes, I totally agree. I guess it's human nature to prefer attacking on a moral angle as opposed to a pragmatic one (even though the latter is usually more effective). We see this all the time even outside the tech sector, people will cry "omg you're such a racist" sooner than "you don't even understand numbers, you bozo".

grasshopperpurp 5y ago
I think it's clearly counterproductive to shout racist at everything; however, people who don't understand the numbers don't (generally) use numbers to define their stances. They choose what to believe in based on other beliefs, and they justify them with funny math. The thing I like about your insult vs "you're racist" is that you're attacking what someone is doing, rather than what they are. When confronting someone for being wrong, it's a lot more constructive to say, 'Hey, you're wrong about this, and this is why,' than it is to say, 'You're a moron (or a bad person), and this is why.' It's also more accurate. Labeling is helpful for navigating thousands of people in our communities/millions online, but keep those labels to yourself, and be ready to question them. During confrontation, though, it will cause the other side to shut down, and that's where we are. We're more concerned with defining each other as others than working together to find commonalities and building on points of agreement. I'd just add that significant power imbalance significantly changes things and how we ought to attack disagreement.
- qsort 5y ago
  Yes, the point I think you're getting at is how many bad actors will use the aesthetics of rationality without the substance of it, and that's equally irrational. Like the screens of fake code from B-movie hacking scenes, they look like they mean something, but there's nothing behind the surface. However, in such cases I think it's actually even more harmful to resort to those accusations as a first resort. Those arguments are usually wrong in at least two ways: wrong as in "incoherent, logically flawed", and wrong as in "defending reprehensible behavior". Failing to point out the logical flaws can lead others to believe "he's unlikable but he's right", another type of posture that these people just adore acting out. There absolutely exist genuinely racist, sexist, etc. people, and one should definitely call them out when appropriate. But those terms are very susceptible to "cry wolf" type of scenarios. If everything is the worst thing ever, then nothing is. Being more cautious with how one plays those cards allows them to be more effective when needed. I completely agree with you about labeling, I couldn't have said it better myself.

boldslogan 5y ago

the criticism of C.A. do you have any further reading? i recall a podcast where they interviewed one of the founders ( his name was something comically evil like last name Spectre) and he was saying it was just consulting mumbojumbo and it didnt work. but now I cant find it.

decasteve 5y ago

> Cambridge Analytica was a good example of this as well. The press fell over themselves to characterise their technology as some sort of election tipping, mind controlling super tool. They probably loved it. In reality there's not even any scientific backing for their targeting and it most likely did barely anything, they just wanted to look like James Bond's Spectre. Reading what’s still out there about Cambridge Analytica ignores the findings of the UK’s Information Commissioner which indeed found they were basically throwing data at scikit-learn hoping for a result — the script kiddie version of machine learning. How many of the journalists gone back to correct their misinformation on the topic? Many of the articles are still out there in their original form and those hacks are still making hay on the subject.

long_time_gone 5y ago
== How many of the journalists gone back to correct their misinformation on the topic?== What was their misinformation? It seems like they were right about Cambridge Analytica’s goals and tactics. You are claiming their technology wasn’t great, but that doesn’t change how they obtained it or what capabilities they were selling.

marcus_holmes 5y ago

Remember, there's also a powerful tendency to absolve people of the consequences of their actions by painting them as victims of powerful corporate mind-control. If you eat fast food for every meal, is your obesity your fault, or are you a victim of food corporations' incredibly effective advertising? If you smoke a pack a day, despite all the public information that smoking is harmful, is that your fault or the fault of the tobacco industry's advertising? If Doctorow is right, and advertising is ineffective, there's a lot of people who will have to accept that their situation is a product of their own actions. For a lot of people, this is "victim-blaming" and unacceptable. It's a lot easier to have large corporations being evil powerful baddies who control us and therefore absolve us of responsibility for our actions.

harpiaharpyja 5y ago
There's no way to have any power in a situation without taking the perspective that your actions shape your situation though.
- marcus_holmes 5y ago
  Yes, and that lack of power is a feature not a bug for some people.