12 ms·

Some points from the All in Pod. 1. The Twitter board of directors has become a status thing. It's like a country club. They don't have real skin in the game;

• client4 5y ago
  I think the salient point is the impotence of the SEC.
• browserman 5y ago
  Tesla's AI engineers can't even solve their own problems, why do you think they could solve Twitter's?
  • memish 5y ago
    They have solved much harder problems than spam bots.
    • nevir 5y ago
      Solved is a strong word here. They've certainly made a lot of progress
    • derefr 5y ago
      "Spam bots" on their own aren't a hard problem. The hard problem is a very restrictive set of constraints on the solution space, e.g. "can't inconvenience or increase barriers to posting for legitimate users in any way."
    • ehsankia 5y ago
      You mean self driving, which they promised would be ready over 5 years ago and still barely at L3 level? Meanwhile Google engineers have actual L4 level self-driving in both Phoenix and San Francisco (by your logic, they are better than Tesla engineers), yet have not managed to solve Youtube's spam problem.
      • pennaMan 5y ago
        >Meanwhile Google engineers have actual L4 level self-driving They don't have L4 self-driving they just made a contrived railway system for their cars. The second the car is out of the hardcoded route it's not a self driving car anymore.
        • itsoktocry 5y ago
          >The second the car is out of the hardcoded route it's not a self driving car anymore. So what you're saying is that at least the car is self-driving sometimes, whereas the Teslas never are. That's your pro-Tesla argument? You can get in and drive around in a Waymo taxi with no driver and yet Tesla fans are still claiming it's not self-driving, while Tesla is. Hilarious.
        • ehsankia 5y ago
          First off, it's a hard coded area, not "route". They're not buses. A limited area is part of the definition of Level 4. What you're thinking of is Level 5, which is being able to handle any area and situation. There are also reasons beyond capability for the cars being limited to an area. One is legislative, they literally are not allowed to offer service outside a given area. Another is maintenance, the cars need to be within range for their team in case of emergencies or accident. The cars have been tested in many cities outside those two cities, but offering a user-facing service has a lot more barriers.
          • pennaMan 5y ago
            So it dosen't have a single route, it has a couple of them. Mapping the whole area beforehand then driving in it is not "self" driving. You don't go out and carefully map each square inch of the road you're going to take before driving your car on unknown roads do you know?
    • idiotsecant 5y ago
      This is the last place I would expect to see naive hero worship of Tesla's autopilot software, of all things.
      • rezonant 5y ago
        I think they all came out of the woodwork after the last article.
      • deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
    • glogla 5y ago
      Did they stop killing people by crashing into stationary barriers yet?
• j4yav 5y ago
  All in Podcast can be fun but it's way more on the side of entertainment than information/insight. There is a lot of self-serving narratives on that show, and I think they'd be the first to admit it. One of them was saying a few weeks ago that the root cause of the Russian invasion of Ukraine was Twitter, so you know.. grain of salt and all that.
  • FFRefresh 5y ago
    Any direct quotes/sources to substantiate that a “Twitter as root cause of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine” claim was honestly made?
• darth_avocado 5y ago
  > One AI engineer from Tesla could solve Twitter’s bot and spam problem I think you underestimate how hard the problem is or you don’t fully understand how it works. The scale at which Twitter operates makes it near impossible to take down spam in real time. You don’t think Twitter is working on it, but they are. What you see is a much smaller percentage of the actual spam generated, and the reason you see it is because users are creative on circumventing all the preventive actions they take.
  • eldenwrong 5y ago
    Add a bitcoin deposit to verify account as orange. Problem solved
  • viraptor 5y ago
    An alternative take: there's spam that's trivial to spot and spam that's hard to spot. Twitter is ignoring both. I can give you both searches and keywords to post which will return lots of spam ready to block. Not everything of course, but let's not post the "spam is a hard problem" excuse until they nuke every account responding with "metamask" and a link to Google forms.
    • soperj 5y ago
      You don't nuke the accounts, you make it so no one can see their posts and they don't realize. Make them waste their time instead of creating a new account.
      • coffeeblack 5y ago
        You do neither. You offer users a list of filters they can choose to activate, so they only see content according to the filters they enabled. There would be filters against spam, filters against opinions other than your own, etc.
      • viraptor 5y ago
        Implementation detail ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ you can handle this in many ways. The point was that Twitter doesn't currently care to use even minimal effort.
• tptacek 5y ago
  "One AI engineer from Tesla could solve Twitter's bot and spam problem." It's hard to take any of the rest of this seriously after that "detail".
  • memish 5y ago
    Why? You don't have to agree with everything. That's fine. It's a separate point from the others.
    • chippiewill 5y ago
      It's not just that they're wrong, it's that they're talking nonsense. An ML engineer working on perception models can't be trivially retasked to an NLP spam filtering problem. If they're obviously talking out of their arse on one point then it definitely suggests they're talking out of their arse on the rest of it.
  • sillysaurusx 5y ago
    I think this is the first time I disagree with you. Bot problem, perhaps not. Spam problem, definitely. https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1487022342630957062?s=21&t=G_-0TTFKtqMFWBnZa301Fw https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1487022342630957062?s=21&t=... https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1496549841912094733?s=21&t=G_-0TTFKtqMFWBnZa301Fw https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1496549841912094733?s=21&t=... https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1485588476057825290?s=21&t=G_-0TTFKtqMFWBnZa301Fw https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1485588476057825290?s=21&t=... and https://twitter.com/id_aa_carmack/status/1473752736537657349?s=21&t=G_-0TTFKtqMFWBnZa301Fw https://twitter.com/id_aa_carmack/status/1473752736537657349... https://twitter.com/id_aa_carmack/status/1399028630190239746?s=21&t=G_-0TTFKtqMFWBnZa301Fw https://twitter.com/id_aa_carmack/status/1399028630190239746... I know how hard it is to deploy features at scale, especially at a world-class company like Twitter. But if Twitter were to retain me as a consultant, I’d happily bet you any sum of your choosing that I’d make a pretty big dent in the crypto spam within a few months of full-time effort.
    • memish 5y ago
      For those blindly downvoting that, here's what Paul Graham said: "Either (a) Twitter is terribly bad at detecting spam or (b) there's something about Twitter that makes detecting spam difficult or (c) they don't care. Based on my experience detecting spam, I'd guess (c)." "Twitter engineering: If you're going to do such a bad job of catching spam, how about at least giving us a one-click way to report a tweet as spam and block the account, like email providers do? It may even help you get better at filtering, since more reports = more signal."
• thereare5lights 5y ago
  > 4. One AI engineer from Tesla could solve Twitter's bot and spam problem. I don't know why people think is the problem. They regularly ban bot and spam accounts. This is not an issue. The issue is malicious/ignorant human actors and malicious state level actors. Tesla AI engineers can't even get past L3. There's no chance they would be able to create an AI solution that can fight state level resources or massive amounts of humans gossiping and spread misinformation.
• emodendroket 5y ago
  > The elites have somehow inverted history so they now believe that it is not censorship that is the favored tool of fascists and authoritarians, even though every fascist and despot in history used censorship to maintain power, but instead believe free speech, free discourse, and free thought are the instruments of repression. It feels a little silly to act like the guy trying to spend billions of dollars to get his way represents anything more than an intra-elite conflict.
  • memish 5y ago
    That's like saying SpaceX isn't about going to Mars and Tesla isn't about reducing carbon emissions. At this point we can say these are mission focused moves. This is about free speech in the public square.
    • emodendroket 5y ago
      Well if you want to identify with this particular elite faction rather than the other one that's your business.
    • 4ggr0 5y ago
      You think Tesla is about reducing carbon emissions?
  • LMYahooTFY 5y ago
    "his way" vs what? The way of a dozen other guys? Pushing for less censorship isn't "his way" - - I see you've edited to "intra-elite" conflict. So is basically every problem in society then given that governance is handled by few. Not sure what the point is here, just feels like a hollow dismissal.
    • emodendroket 5y ago
      I didn't edit it. It always said that. And it is "his way" because "less censorship" almost certainly doesn't actually mean they just let people post whatever (and even if it did, do "we" all agree that would be a good idea? Probably not).
• freebuju 5y ago
  6. My favorite prediction. Twitter continues to ignore any of Musk's offers. Musk sells his 9% stake. Price goes down. Continues to go down since Twitter('s mgt) is full of shit. Elon gets in an offer when price is languishing at low $30's. Twitter has no choice but to take Elon's offer.
• chx 5y ago
  > One AI engineer from Tesla could solve Twitter's bot and spam problem. Put down the Elon kool-aid , it has poisoned your mind.
• captainmuon 5y ago
  > 5. The elites have somehow inverted history so they now believe that it is not censorship that is the favored tool of fascists and authoritarians, even though every fascist and despot in history used censorship to maintain power, but instead believe free speech, free discourse, and free thought are the instruments of repression. Not every speech is equal. If you are living in a Weimar-Republic scenario, yes, free speech can be repressive and I can see why people will call for censorship. Personally, I think censorship and speech taboos just keep a lid on certain problems instead of solving them.
  • Closi 5y ago
    > Not every speech is equal. If you are living in a Weimar-Republic scenario, yes, free speech can be repressive and I can see why people will call for censorship. Personally, I think censorship and speech taboos just keep a lid on certain problems instead of solving them The problem with this is that it always ends up as “censorship is ok, as long as it’s for opinions I disagree with”. And with your Weimar-republic scenario, if the implied claim is that more censorship would have stopped either the radicalisation or rise of Adolf Hitler, I think that’s very simplistic and highly suspect.
• 9935c101ab17a66 5y ago
  I'd never heard of All in Pod, and so I listened to the section from 43:00 on about this being a 'free speech' issue. Quick takeaways: - The frequent pejorative use of the term 'elites' as a catchall for literally anyone they disagree with is hilarious. Their explanation of Musk being the iconoclastic 'anti-elite elite' sounds like Ayn Rand fan-fic written by a 14 year old who just read the Wikipedia plot summary for Atlas Shrugged. - What does 'inverting history' even mean? It seems to be another example from Glenn Greenwald's vast and vitriolic argot. (I'm sure Glenn Greenwald is another commendable 'anti-elite elite'). - Paraphrasing: "journalists 20 years ago would have been defending the first amendment!" -> this is not about the first amendment. The first amendment protects your ability to speak freely from government imposed restriction or suppression. Ironically, twenty years ago the press/journalists and even government officials were experiencing one George Bush's sweeping censorship efforts (https://www.americanprogress.org/article/think-again-the-bush-legacy-war-on-the-press https://www.americanprogress.org/article/think-again-the-bus...). Anyway, the hosts wistfully allude to the past, with references to society's 'public square' and people having the ability to say whatever they wanted with no repercussions. This is nonsense. Broadly, you can absolutely say whatever you want online — it's easier than ever. That doesn't mean: 1) Twitter is required to provide a platform for you to abuse and harass people, or spout opinions they deem to be offensive, damaging, or misleading. That's their choice. 2) Free speech has never been consequence-free. To quote Michael Hobbes: "Voicing your opinion in public has always carried the risk of being shamed or shunned." Finally, I will concede that twitter has suffered from poor growth, and a change in leadership could be a good thing for the company. But the board also has a responsibility to protect minority shareholders from people exactly like Elon. Their resistance to his efforts may have nothing to do with the vague, insulting and unsubstantiated allegations you and the podcast hosts make (It's a 'country club', board members are only acting against musk to protect their 'status', etc). Rather, they may quite reasonably believe that a vainglorious egomaniac who has been repeatedly sanctioned by the SEC may, in fact, not be the ideal owner of a social media company. Ps. > 4. One AI engineer from Tesla could solve Twitter's bot and spam problem. Do you really, seriously think this is true? It comes across as deliberately inflammatory, and you and I both know it's not true.
  • dmix 5y ago
• bratwurst3000 5y ago
  The same ai engineer that devlops their self driving cars ???? :):):):)
• SheinhardtWigCo 5y ago
  > bot and spam problem Problem? KPIs are through the roof!
• faeriechangling 5y ago
  >5. The elites have somehow inverted history so they now believe that it is not censorship that is the favored tool of fascists and authoritarians, even though every fascist and despot in history used censorship to maintain power, but instead believe free speech, free discourse, and free thought are the instruments of repression. Fascists and authoritarians took advantage of freedom of speech to gain power, the censorship came after they seized power. Hitler promoted himself through his right to speak at his trials, and through his book Mein Kampf, things the Weimer Republic could have absolutely chosen to censor. Karl Popper made a rather infamous observation of the "Paradox of tolerance" where tolerating the intolerant could result in more intolerance, if the intolerant happened to be Hitler in Nazi Germany. I find the biggest objection to this entire line of thought is that censors always consider themselves to be the ones resisting the next Nazi Germany rather than being Nazi Germany themselves. Anybody who openly censors others is more likely than the general person in the population to be some sort of totalitarian authoritarian, so trusting them with power so they can stop some sort of Nazi uprising is foolish. It's the same kind of issue as "Bombing for peace", pretty much 100% of the people who have ever bombed people have said they were doing it for the sake of peace. This all being said, I don't think giving Musk 100% of twitter and the effective absolute power to censor others on the platform is a good idea.
• aaronbrethorst 5y ago
  Oh, is that a white nationalist? No, it’s a stoplight! Very well, carry on.
• beebmam 5y ago
  Why should a company be forced to carry, host, and service the speech of others? If Twitter is a monopoly, apply anti-trust laws to it and break it up. If Twitter isn't a monopoly, then they should every right to decide what their service does, as long as it's within the law. If you don't like the current laws, change them. I am totally, 100% opposed to privately owned companies being forced to carry speech that they don't want to carry. That itself is a violation of the free speech of people that operate businesses.
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
• supernes 5y ago
  I don't mean to sound rude, but Tesla engineers can't even distinguish the moon from a stoplight. Human interaction and defending against a naturally intelligent adversary are not so simple.
  • chippiewill 5y ago
    It doesn't even matter if their perception models _were_ that good, NLP is a seriously different problem.
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• opensrcken 5y ago
  > 4. One AI engineer from Tesla could solve Twitter's bot and spam problem. This a comment written by someone who is clearly not an engineer dealing with high-scale backends, and is definitely not an AI engineer.
  • hiyer 5y ago
    Or someone who's a Tesla/Musk fanboy/girl.
• atoav 5y ago
  > The elites have somehow inverted history so they now believe that it is not censorship that is the favored tool of fascists and authoritarians, even though every fascist and despot in history used censorship to maintain power, but instead believe free speech, free discourse, and free thought are the instruments of repression. At which point in history could any person blurt out a brainfart and have thousands of people around the globe hear it and react instantly again? When the printing press was invented ther was a backlash against it, because free speech was endangering existing power structures. Nowadays we have it the other way around, powerful players use the accelerated chaos of social media to avoid any real discourse from forming — it is just very easy to manipulate just enough into your direction to hide behind "differing opinions" if you have a ton of resources — just like boulevard media has been for the past decades. Censorship and media control is one strategy to reduce the chaos by decelerating the spread of the most outrageous unfounded claims. Of course there can be such a thing as too much censorship (e.g. look to China and Russia), but this would be state censorship. A billionaire does not want to buy a social media plattform because he cares about free speech — if that was the case he would have nothing about his workers discussing unions, post youtube videos he does not like or journalist writing negative things about him and still being able to buy a Tesla car. I am not sure there is much wisdom in assuming we can have a world wide instant public microblogging platform without any moderation at all. Anyone who ever operated any public web platform knows the quality of the discourse falls drasticly if there is not at least some level of content moderation. > One AI engineer from Tesla could solve Twitter's bot and spam problem. You are heavily overexpecting what the technology can do. Differenciating satire from a threat with sufficient accuracy is not something machine learning ("AI") could do right now.
  • upsidesinclude 5y ago
    • 9935c101ab17a66 5y ago
      Many, many people are absolutely arguing that zero moderation is appropriate. Anyway, you also acknowledge that some moderation is both appropriate and necessary. So, now we know your opinion of a private company’s moderation is different from the parent commenters, but you both believe moderation is necessary — and then you call them an authoritarian fascist. Your comment is incredibly inappropriate.
• TomSwirly 5y ago
  > One AI engineer from Tesla could solve Twitter's bot and spam problem. Translation: "AI is a magic spell! I can take someone who's been working on vision recognition, and they alone could wish all our bots and spams away, with the magic of AI." > The elites Oh, god, here comes the libertarian spiel... > but instead believe free speech, free discourse, and free thought are the instruments of repression. Translation: "I want the right to tell any lie I please without consequences. I want the right to be able to scream at people on the Internet and keep my account. If I can't call someone racist names on the Internet, it's because you're all Fascists and authoritarians!"
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  • honeybadger1 5y ago
    I am sure you are the life of the party.
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  • memish 5y ago
    That translation is projection, nothing more.
• ransom1538 5y ago
  "5. The elites have somehow inverted history so they now believe that it is not censorship that is the favored tool of fascists and authoritarians, even though every fascist and despot in history used censorship to maintain power, but instead believe free speech, free discourse, and free thought are the instruments of repression." Yes. Gaslighting crystalized. We are now to believe free speech is bad. Authoritarians know auguring against logic is hard.
• dm319 5y ago
  People keep bringing up your point 5 here. Almost every other comment seems to parrot this idea that there is some paragon of free speech that Twitter doesn't achieve. Setting all the discussion of what free speech should be, aside, I don't see people making the point that Twitter's huge success as a social media platform may actually relate to their moderation policies. Twitter was found to be more resistant to fake news than other social media sites. I don't know whether this relates to the public nature of tweets or their moderation. Twitter's moderation policy may exactly be the reason the platform has done so well, and rather than clamouring for Twitter to change, I'd suggest that we allow the free market to allow another platform with different a moderation approach to compete.