35 ms·

Recommendation systems just mirror what the users watch - including their age - and the reality is that 99% of people have horrible taste in just about everythi

Recommendation systems just mirror what the users watch - including their age - and the reality is that 99% of people have horrible taste in just about everything. They can't tell the difference between a great film and a terrible film - they walk away thinking "I enjoyed that".

jopsen 4y ago
> they walk away thinking "I enjoyed that". I really enjoyed reading your comment :)
- trh0awayman 4y ago
  My point wasn't to denigrate people for having poor taste or whatever. I don't care what people watch. And I'm not one to talk - I sometimes think of buying one of those McMansions from McMansion Hell. But my point was that the systems are working as intended, and that there is no real failure here - people are seeing a reflection of their peers. It was hard for me to understand it until I saw how my Zoomer cousin watched Youtube like it was a TV station. Youtubers aren't "gaming" any sort of system, just like SEO isn't really "gaming" Google (for the most part) - they're both gaming people. SEO tricks work because it gets clicks. Clickbait titles have worked for 10+ years now because it STILL gets clicks.
  - ghusbands 4y ago
    >>> 99% of people have horrible taste in just about everything > My point wasn't to denigrate people for having poor taste These are directly contradictory. "horrible taste" is a denigrating term.
    - michaelt 4y ago
      Perhaps he means "I don't denigrate people for having poor taste - because in my view, there's no such thing"
jahnu 4y ago
'Democracy has bad taste' - Grayson Perry From his four great Reith lectures https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03969vt https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03969vt
bazhova 4y ago
Agreed. To go further, I think people don't even want quality content. And on the internet, they just want the feed. They don't want reccomended videos to choose from. They don't need a comment section. The search bar doesn't even matter. Turns out the best way to engage people and get them to use any platform for hours is to just give them a feed. It's why TikTok, YouTube and most Meta products all have stories that just autoplay. That's the future
- newaccount74 4y ago
  > people don't even want quality content I don't think that's true in general. People do want good content, but good content is hard to find, and people just don't want to put in the effort of finding it. They watch what the algorithms suggest because it's easy, not because they really want to watch that stuff. I mean, look at me, scrolling HN and Reddit for hours. Do I think this is quality content? No. But it would take a lot of effort to find something to better spend my time, so I just don't bother.
  - yamazakiwi 4y ago
    I also think being shown what is popular to the majority is another part of the stimulation a feed can bring. Even if you feel the content is poor quality, you now know what content is popular and that is useful.
jeroenhd 4y ago
> They can't tell the difference between a great film and a terrible film - they walk away thinking "I enjoyed that". If I walk away and think "I enjoyed that" then by all measures that was a great film. A great film will please most of not all of its target audience. When a film is shown in Cannes the target audience is cinema enthusiasts who seek deeper meaning and interesting new ways to use the medium. When a new James Bond is shown, the target audience is anyone who enjoyed the trailer or the spy film genre enough to decide they want to see the movie. Film critics like to be snobs about what is and isn't "real cinema", but that's not about superior taste. They may have a different taste, but that taste is no better or worse than anyone else's. If 99% of people don't like what you like and therefore have horrible taste, maybe the problem isn't everyone else.
- bigDinosaur 4y ago
  I always think there are at least two levels of enjoyment. 'I enjoyed that' -> mapping to the enjoyment one gets from eating junk food. It's true, but it's a lack of complexity and engagement with what you're doing or eating. I'd actually include things like beautiful views in this too. It's often characterised by being okay with blatant flaws in plot logic or coherence or plausibility. 'I enjoyed that and it made me think/engage/reflect' -> mapping to the enjoyment one gets in complexity or well-constructed crafts which is often more gradual. In this case, liking something requires active engagement and thought. The problem is that it's easy to substitute the latter with the former (which is easier). There are only so many beautiful views one can see before the brain yearns to learn what's behind them (curiousity and our brain's requirement for novelty?). I find it similar with films. I don't think this means everything has to be 'le film artistique'. But I also don't think it's healthy to only have the first experience.
- stackbutterflow 4y ago
  It's important to be intellectually stimulated. Feeling good is not enough. The same way drugs trigger pleasure in our brain but we can't accept a society where the majority is constantly high and a minority runs the show. The moment we give up on pushing people to challenge themselves is the moment our society declines. Moreover democracies require an educated populace in order to survive.
rowanG077 4y ago
That's pretty rich. What you meant to say is: "I don't agree with 99% of other people about what is good."
comboy 4y ago
Take a look at the video in question[1]- I search for some answer, I watch it and I DID NOT enjoy that. If not for the dislike button, I have no way to signal that to youtube. Algorithm just sees that I watched the video - great. Since I haven't found answer to my question I may watch even more videos on the topic (alg - great video, got him hooked on that topic). Most recommendation system mismatches are much more subtle. If most people enjoy a film, then it's a good film. If you think 99% have horrible taste, you just have different taste than most people. Even being charitable with interpretation of your comment, if you dive deep enough, there is no rational argument that makes deep philosophical ponderings better than laughs. At least given our current understanding of the Universe. 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyIKRuSDgIc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyIKRuSDgIc
- dredmorbius 4y ago
  Back in the G+ days (I was both an active user and critic), I hammered the importance of the Exit, Voice, Loyalty model. Google from its inception had inspired exceptionally strong loyalty through solving technical problems (web search) well. I'd adopted and was proselytizing as of 1999. Over the years that situation ... changed. With Google no longer serving technical needs well (across multiple dimensions), and disabling voice (killing YouTube downvotes being only one of many examples), the remaining option is exit. And so I've exited virtually all Google products and services. (The vibe of "my mind is going, Dave, I can feel it" as I deleted my GMail contacts one at a time was ... morbidly fascinating. I've retained that account, as a last-ditch contact. I check it every few months, perhaps.) Google can't seem to distinguish between "short term retention" vs. "long-term reputational harm". Though they're hardly the only one --- see Reddit and Facebook as other examples.
  - dredmorbius 4y ago
    Clarifying: as I methodically deleted Gmail contacts, an increasingly desperate set of pleas and feedback/survey requests appeared. I opted not to participate. The actions speak for themselves.
dredmorbius 4y ago
"Page Rank" worked well when most of the implicit ranking (linking) was done by university students, faculty, and tech-industry staff. It's scaled poorly as the Web has broadened. Given enough eyeballs, all content is shallow.
kristopolous 4y ago
This is an inversion of how human behavior works. The reality is that a context is created, either intentionally or not, and then people behave in the context. I commented on this phenomena 4 months ago in a different thread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30184653 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30184653) and 7 months ago somewhere else (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28972157 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28972157) Quoting one of them > So you treat users like idiots and then they start acting like idiots. It really does work that way. > Let me give an intuitive analogy for those unconvinced. We're going to use a gym, library, and bar. The same person would be exercising, studying, and drinking at those institutions, in specifically that order. > We shape the buildings (create the context); thereafter they shape us. > It's the difference between say assuming your customers are alcoholics and then building a bar and saying "it is of public benefit, profitable to our company, whatever, if our users studied so let us make a library and they will rise to the occasion". so "Recommendation systems just mirror what the users watch" is not a complete statement. It's "Recommendation systems just mirror what the users watch in the <built context of the site>" The same users on youtube, kahn academy, twitch, and xtube will follow dramatically different paths because the products are just slightly removed from pure thought-stuff. They are castles in the air, from air, creating by exertion of the imagination as Fred Brooks said, true. But they do amount to a concrete form and context and it does meaningfully influence behavior. The system encourages the bad behavior. The context is what makes it "natural" - it doesn't have to be that way.
passivate 4y ago
That is an elitist viewpoint. Things that have mass appeal are just that - things that most people like/enjoy/prefer. There will always be niche areas with limited appeal to more critical audiences, or audiences who value other things like aesthetics or other highly technical aspects. If you can't convince others of your position, then there is no reason for everyone to take it seriously. Its basically the verbal equivalent of a position paper.

jopsen 4y ago

> they walk away thinking "I enjoyed that". I really enjoyed reading your comment :)

trh0awayman 4y ago
My point wasn't to denigrate people for having poor taste or whatever. I don't care what people watch. And I'm not one to talk - I sometimes think of buying one of those McMansions from McMansion Hell. But my point was that the systems are working as intended, and that there is no real failure here - people are seeing a reflection of their peers. It was hard for me to understand it until I saw how my Zoomer cousin watched Youtube like it was a TV station. Youtubers aren't "gaming" any sort of system, just like SEO isn't really "gaming" Google (for the most part) - they're both gaming people. SEO tricks work because it gets clicks. Clickbait titles have worked for 10+ years now because it STILL gets clicks.
- ghusbands 4y ago
  >>> 99% of people have horrible taste in just about everything > My point wasn't to denigrate people for having poor taste These are directly contradictory. "horrible taste" is a denigrating term.
  - michaelt 4y ago
    Perhaps he means "I don't denigrate people for having poor taste - because in my view, there's no such thing"

jahnu 4y ago

'Democracy has bad taste' - Grayson Perry From his four great Reith lectures https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03969vt https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03969vt

bazhova 4y ago

Agreed. To go further, I think people don't even want quality content. And on the internet, they just want the feed. They don't want reccomended videos to choose from. They don't need a comment section. The search bar doesn't even matter. Turns out the best way to engage people and get them to use any platform for hours is to just give them a feed. It's why TikTok, YouTube and most Meta products all have stories that just autoplay. That's the future

newaccount74 4y ago
> people don't even want quality content I don't think that's true in general. People do want good content, but good content is hard to find, and people just don't want to put in the effort of finding it. They watch what the algorithms suggest because it's easy, not because they really want to watch that stuff. I mean, look at me, scrolling HN and Reddit for hours. Do I think this is quality content? No. But it would take a lot of effort to find something to better spend my time, so I just don't bother.
- yamazakiwi 4y ago
  I also think being shown what is popular to the majority is another part of the stimulation a feed can bring. Even if you feel the content is poor quality, you now know what content is popular and that is useful.

jeroenhd 4y ago

> They can't tell the difference between a great film and a terrible film - they walk away thinking "I enjoyed that". If I walk away and think "I enjoyed that" then by all measures that was a great film. A great film will please most of not all of its target audience. When a film is shown in Cannes the target audience is cinema enthusiasts who seek deeper meaning and interesting new ways to use the medium. When a new James Bond is shown, the target audience is anyone who enjoyed the trailer or the spy film genre enough to decide they want to see the movie. Film critics like to be snobs about what is and isn't "real cinema", but that's not about superior taste. They may have a different taste, but that taste is no better or worse than anyone else's. If 99% of people don't like what you like and therefore have horrible taste, maybe the problem isn't everyone else.

bigDinosaur 4y ago
I always think there are at least two levels of enjoyment. 'I enjoyed that' -> mapping to the enjoyment one gets from eating junk food. It's true, but it's a lack of complexity and engagement with what you're doing or eating. I'd actually include things like beautiful views in this too. It's often characterised by being okay with blatant flaws in plot logic or coherence or plausibility. 'I enjoyed that and it made me think/engage/reflect' -> mapping to the enjoyment one gets in complexity or well-constructed crafts which is often more gradual. In this case, liking something requires active engagement and thought. The problem is that it's easy to substitute the latter with the former (which is easier). There are only so many beautiful views one can see before the brain yearns to learn what's behind them (curiousity and our brain's requirement for novelty?). I find it similar with films. I don't think this means everything has to be 'le film artistique'. But I also don't think it's healthy to only have the first experience.
stackbutterflow 4y ago
It's important to be intellectually stimulated. Feeling good is not enough. The same way drugs trigger pleasure in our brain but we can't accept a society where the majority is constantly high and a minority runs the show. The moment we give up on pushing people to challenge themselves is the moment our society declines. Moreover democracies require an educated populace in order to survive.

rowanG077 4y ago

That's pretty rich. What you meant to say is: "I don't agree with 99% of other people about what is good."

comboy 4y ago

Take a look at the video in question[1]- I search for some answer, I watch it and I DID NOT enjoy that. If not for the dislike button, I have no way to signal that to youtube. Algorithm just sees that I watched the video - great. Since I haven't found answer to my question I may watch even more videos on the topic (alg - great video, got him hooked on that topic). Most recommendation system mismatches are much more subtle. If most people enjoy a film, then it's a good film. If you think 99% have horrible taste, you just have different taste than most people. Even being charitable with interpretation of your comment, if you dive deep enough, there is no rational argument that makes deep philosophical ponderings better than laughs. At least given our current understanding of the Universe. 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyIKRuSDgIc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyIKRuSDgIc

dredmorbius 4y ago
Back in the G+ days (I was both an active user and critic), I hammered the importance of the Exit, Voice, Loyalty model. Google from its inception had inspired exceptionally strong loyalty through solving technical problems (web search) well. I'd adopted and was proselytizing as of 1999. Over the years that situation ... changed. With Google no longer serving technical needs well (across multiple dimensions), and disabling voice (killing YouTube downvotes being only one of many examples), the remaining option is exit. And so I've exited virtually all Google products and services. (The vibe of "my mind is going, Dave, I can feel it" as I deleted my GMail contacts one at a time was ... morbidly fascinating. I've retained that account, as a last-ditch contact. I check it every few months, perhaps.) Google can't seem to distinguish between "short term retention" vs. "long-term reputational harm". Though they're hardly the only one --- see Reddit and Facebook as other examples.
- dredmorbius 4y ago
  Clarifying: as I methodically deleted Gmail contacts, an increasingly desperate set of pleas and feedback/survey requests appeared. I opted not to participate. The actions speak for themselves.

dredmorbius 4y ago

"Page Rank" worked well when most of the implicit ranking (linking) was done by university students, faculty, and tech-industry staff. It's scaled poorly as the Web has broadened. Given enough eyeballs, all content is shallow.

kristopolous 4y ago

This is an inversion of how human behavior works. The reality is that a context is created, either intentionally or not, and then people behave in the context. I commented on this phenomena 4 months ago in a different thread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30184653 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30184653) and 7 months ago somewhere else (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28972157 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28972157) Quoting one of them > So you treat users like idiots and then they start acting like idiots. It really does work that way. > Let me give an intuitive analogy for those unconvinced. We're going to use a gym, library, and bar. The same person would be exercising, studying, and drinking at those institutions, in specifically that order. > We shape the buildings (create the context); thereafter they shape us. > It's the difference between say assuming your customers are alcoholics and then building a bar and saying "it is of public benefit, profitable to our company, whatever, if our users studied so let us make a library and they will rise to the occasion". so "Recommendation systems just mirror what the users watch" is not a complete statement. It's "Recommendation systems just mirror what the users watch in the <built context of the site>" The same users on youtube, kahn academy, twitch, and xtube will follow dramatically different paths because the products are just slightly removed from pure thought-stuff. They are castles in the air, from air, creating by exertion of the imagination as Fred Brooks said, true. But they do amount to a concrete form and context and it does meaningfully influence behavior. The system encourages the bad behavior. The context is what makes it "natural" - it doesn't have to be that way.

passivate 4y ago

That is an elitist viewpoint. Things that have mass appeal are just that - things that most people like/enjoy/prefer. There will always be niche areas with limited appeal to more critical audiences, or audiences who value other things like aesthetics or other highly technical aspects. If you can't convince others of your position, then there is no reason for everyone to take it seriously. Its basically the verbal equivalent of a position paper.