5 ms·

So, the previous point still stands. These algorithms purposefully amplify content that increases engagement, which often happens to be toxic. Ergo, these algor

So, the previous point still stands. These algorithms purposefully amplify content that increases engagement, which often happens to be toxic. Ergo, these algorithms often purposefully amplify toxic content.

chiefalchemist 4y ago
The algorythm doesn't care what its amplifying, only that the amplification increases engagement. Toxic is a correlation, not a causation.
- prophesi 4y ago
  If it's known to be a correlation, then it's disingenuous to say they're innocent for simply wanting to amplify engagement.
  - q-big 4y ago
    > If it's known to be a correlation, then it's disingenuous to say they're innocent for simply wanting to amplify engagement. But if it's know to be just a correlation, it is a defamation to claim that this was done on purpose ("purposefully").
    - prophesi 4y ago
      If you know exposure to radiation causes cancer, then you shouldn't let people continue to mine despite simply wanting more uranium or what have you for philanthropic purposes.
    - uoaei 4y ago
      Purposefully is a red herring. Try knowingly.
  - chiefalchemist 4y ago
    You seem to be confusing correlation with causation. Correlation is effectively coincidence. You can't expect anyone to make decisions - business or otherwise - based on coincidence. In fact, we attemp to solve too many symptoms based on correlation. We can't keep doing that. It's creating more noise while true root problems continue and expand.
    - prophesi 4y ago
      The irony is that these machine learning algorithms are effectively coincidence machines. There's no rhyme or reason as to why they work once you have even just a handful of neural net layers, and people invest quite a lot into these magic recommendation machines. As for toxicity, I don't think there's one magical root cause for all of it. And I'd argue that most features and designs to increase engagement _are_ one of the many causes for people to create lucrative polarizing digital content. edit: Also I'm not sure how my original post was confusing correlation with causation. You can replace "correlation" with "coincidence" there without issue.
      - trasz 4y ago
        A coincidence is a good starting point for discovering things. A natural next step would be to figure out how to dissect trained networks and turn them into proper models.
        prophesi 4y ago
        I hope we can figure it out! I'm a big fan of explainable AI initiatives. Though I have a feeling it won't be for another decade or so before anything huge is discovered, considering how long the technology has been around.
      - chiefalchemist 4y ago
        They're tuned to increase engagement. They figure out based on inputs what does that. There's no morality, no value judgement, etc. They try to increase engagement. Why toxic (which is subjective) appeals to so many humans is really the question here. The algorythms has no say in that.
q-big 4y ago
> Ergo, these algorithms often purposefully amplify toxic content. "Purposefully" means that the algorithms were developed with the purpose to amplify toxic content. I seriously doubt this is the case. Amplifying toxic content is rather an unintended side effect of the metrics that the algorithms optimize for.
- cnelsenmilt 4y ago
  Is it your position then that since the developers had neutral intent, therefore the algorithms do not need to be adjusted?
  - q-big 4y ago
    > Is it your position then that since the developers had neutral intent, therefore the algorithms do not need to be adjusted? No, my position is that since the developers had neutral intent, it is defamation to claim that these algorithms purposefully amplify toxic content.
    - cnelsenmilt 4y ago
      I'm not sure how "defamation" is germane to the discussion, or the original point that you responded to.
      - woweoe 4y ago
        The algorithm is not looking for toxic content to amplify. It's looking for content that would attain the most engagement of its users. If you consider the posts to be toxic, then maybe you are in a minority.
        cnelsenmilt 4y ago
        This doesn't appear to be a response to any of the content of the comment it is posted in reply to. Or indeed the entire thread.
jasonwatkinspdx 4y ago
At this very moment, the person trending highest across all social media is a sex trafficker hawking his self improvement remote mentorship thing to insecure young men. His basic tactic is to say blatantly misogynistic things to get eyeballs. I saw youtube's new shorts feature and clicked on it out of curiousity. It gave me a couple funny cat videos and some cooking content copied from tik tok... but after that it was just a doomscroll of the guy I'm talking about above, Prager University, etc. Youtube has like 2 decades of data on what videos I watch, and it's definitely not that shit, but yet it's clear their algorithm is optimizing to put that in front of my eyes.
- sour-taste 4y ago
  Interestingly normal youtube recommendations continue to be pretty good, but the shorts feature is just a cesspool that's far worse than tik tok.
  - togs 4y ago
    I’m interested that your experience with YouTube recommendations contrasts so drastically with my own!
    - sour-taste 4y ago
      I watch way too much youtube, to the point that they have lots of data on what I like
- dnissley 4y ago
  > At this very moment, the person trending highest across all social media is a sex trafficker hawking his self improvement remote mentorship thing to insecure young men Who is this? And what platforms? I'm not seeing anything like this on fb/twtr/ig/tt/yt
  - ChadNauseam 4y ago
    His name is Andrew Tate. He’s been making videos for years but blew up recently. I think his primary platform is youtube
togs 4y ago
I suggest that it might be worth reflecting on what ‘toxic’ means, because it is at least unclear to me, and the term seems to carry a lot of significance in this conversation!

chiefalchemist 4y ago

The algorythm doesn't care what its amplifying, only that the amplification increases engagement. Toxic is a correlation, not a causation.

prophesi 4y ago
If it's known to be a correlation, then it's disingenuous to say they're innocent for simply wanting to amplify engagement.
- q-big 4y ago
  > If it's known to be a correlation, then it's disingenuous to say they're innocent for simply wanting to amplify engagement. But if it's know to be just a correlation, it is a defamation to claim that this was done on purpose ("purposefully").
  - prophesi 4y ago
    If you know exposure to radiation causes cancer, then you shouldn't let people continue to mine despite simply wanting more uranium or what have you for philanthropic purposes.
  - uoaei 4y ago
    Purposefully is a red herring. Try knowingly.
- chiefalchemist 4y ago
  You seem to be confusing correlation with causation. Correlation is effectively coincidence. You can't expect anyone to make decisions - business or otherwise - based on coincidence. In fact, we attemp to solve too many symptoms based on correlation. We can't keep doing that. It's creating more noise while true root problems continue and expand.
  - prophesi 4y ago
    The irony is that these machine learning algorithms are effectively coincidence machines. There's no rhyme or reason as to why they work once you have even just a handful of neural net layers, and people invest quite a lot into these magic recommendation machines. As for toxicity, I don't think there's one magical root cause for all of it. And I'd argue that most features and designs to increase engagement _are_ one of the many causes for people to create lucrative polarizing digital content. edit: Also I'm not sure how my original post was confusing correlation with causation. You can replace "correlation" with "coincidence" there without issue.
    - trasz 4y ago
      A coincidence is a good starting point for discovering things. A natural next step would be to figure out how to dissect trained networks and turn them into proper models.
      - prophesi 4y ago
        I hope we can figure it out! I'm a big fan of explainable AI initiatives. Though I have a feeling it won't be for another decade or so before anything huge is discovered, considering how long the technology has been around.
    - chiefalchemist 4y ago
      They're tuned to increase engagement. They figure out based on inputs what does that. There's no morality, no value judgement, etc. They try to increase engagement. Why toxic (which is subjective) appeals to so many humans is really the question here. The algorythms has no say in that.

q-big 4y ago

> Ergo, these algorithms often purposefully amplify toxic content. "Purposefully" means that the algorithms were developed with the purpose to amplify toxic content. I seriously doubt this is the case. Amplifying toxic content is rather an unintended side effect of the metrics that the algorithms optimize for.

cnelsenmilt 4y ago
Is it your position then that since the developers had neutral intent, therefore the algorithms do not need to be adjusted?
- q-big 4y ago
  > Is it your position then that since the developers had neutral intent, therefore the algorithms do not need to be adjusted? No, my position is that since the developers had neutral intent, it is defamation to claim that these algorithms purposefully amplify toxic content.
  - cnelsenmilt 4y ago
    I'm not sure how "defamation" is germane to the discussion, or the original point that you responded to.
    - woweoe 4y ago
      The algorithm is not looking for toxic content to amplify. It's looking for content that would attain the most engagement of its users. If you consider the posts to be toxic, then maybe you are in a minority.
      - cnelsenmilt 4y ago
        This doesn't appear to be a response to any of the content of the comment it is posted in reply to. Or indeed the entire thread.

jasonwatkinspdx 4y ago

At this very moment, the person trending highest across all social media is a sex trafficker hawking his self improvement remote mentorship thing to insecure young men. His basic tactic is to say blatantly misogynistic things to get eyeballs. I saw youtube's new shorts feature and clicked on it out of curiousity. It gave me a couple funny cat videos and some cooking content copied from tik tok... but after that it was just a doomscroll of the guy I'm talking about above, Prager University, etc. Youtube has like 2 decades of data on what videos I watch, and it's definitely not that shit, but yet it's clear their algorithm is optimizing to put that in front of my eyes.

sour-taste 4y ago
Interestingly normal youtube recommendations continue to be pretty good, but the shorts feature is just a cesspool that's far worse than tik tok.
- togs 4y ago
  I’m interested that your experience with YouTube recommendations contrasts so drastically with my own!
  - sour-taste 4y ago
    I watch way too much youtube, to the point that they have lots of data on what I like
dnissley 4y ago
> At this very moment, the person trending highest across all social media is a sex trafficker hawking his self improvement remote mentorship thing to insecure young men Who is this? And what platforms? I'm not seeing anything like this on fb/twtr/ig/tt/yt
- ChadNauseam 4y ago
  His name is Andrew Tate. He’s been making videos for years but blew up recently. I think his primary platform is youtube

togs 4y ago

I suggest that it might be worth reflecting on what ‘toxic’ means, because it is at least unclear to me, and the term seems to carry a lot of significance in this conversation!