7 ms·

It depends - do you feel that Proctor and Gamble are guilty of using psychologcal understanding of dopamine hits to design their Ranch flavored Doritos? In sim

by caycep 4y ago

It depends - do you feel that Proctor and Gamble are guilty of using psychologcal understanding of dopamine hits to design their Ranch flavored Doritos? In similar vein, would there be a difference in algorithm that shows you what you want, or determines which videos create the most dopamine hits and juices you in a particular direction? There may be fancier ways to describe this, but would an algorithm that merely enhances diffusion be the same as an algorithm designed to drive molecules to the most extreme directions?

saurik 4y ago
I mean, if I see someone crying while eating a giant bag of doritos because they really wish they weren't eating it but their cravings are making it hard for them to stop--and, honestly, I am pretty sure I've done exactly that in the past--and you were to tell me "Proctor and Gamble is merely giving them what they want" I'd call you, at best, a jerk. > In similar vein, would there be a difference in algorithm that shows you what you want, or determines which videos create the most dopamine hits and juices you in a particular direction? Yes, and the idea that you don't see this is literally shocking to me... it absolutely is the case that people can want things that they have a hard time avoiding, and the existence of a "dopamine hit" is not some kind of "proof of want". The comment I was replying to said that the algorithm was "designed to show people what they want"... that is categorically not true: it was designed to show people what makes Google the most money, full stop. > There may be fancier ways to describe this, but would an algorithm that merely enhances diffusion be the same as an algorithm designed to drive molecules to the most extreme directions? I'm sorry, but are you seriously now advocating for treating users--sentient beings with wants and motivations--as nothing more than molecules you can happily and gleefully move with your algorithms? Do you really not see anything wrong with this? :(
- caycep 4y ago
  My post was directed at the Robot Toaster parent of your comment, and perhaps its user error that it posted as a reply to yours instead. My questions were meant to ask if there was a distinction between the motives of the two types of algorithms, at least without (too much) predilection, and see where the answers may fall. I happen to agree with you, actually. It's obvious to me there is a distinction between a preference-neutral recommendation algorithm vs. one juiced for corporate/profit interests. That being said, I don't appreciate personal attacks in replies and I don't think there will be any more useful comments on this matter at least on my part.

by caycep 4y ago

saurik 4y ago

I mean, if I see someone crying while eating a giant bag of doritos because they really wish they weren't eating it but their cravings are making it hard for them to stop--and, honestly, I am pretty sure I've done exactly that in the past--and you were to tell me "Proctor and Gamble is merely giving them what they want" I'd call you, at best, a jerk. > In similar vein, would there be a difference in algorithm that shows you what you want, or determines which videos create the most dopamine hits and juices you in a particular direction? Yes, and the idea that you don't see this is literally shocking to me... it absolutely is the case that people can want things that they have a hard time avoiding, and the existence of a "dopamine hit" is not some kind of "proof of want". The comment I was replying to said that the algorithm was "designed to show people what they want"... that is categorically not true: it was designed to show people what makes Google the most money, full stop. > There may be fancier ways to describe this, but would an algorithm that merely enhances diffusion be the same as an algorithm designed to drive molecules to the most extreme directions? I'm sorry, but are you seriously now advocating for treating users--sentient beings with wants and motivations--as nothing more than molecules you can happily and gleefully move with your algorithms? Do you really not see anything wrong with this? :(

caycep 4y ago
My post was directed at the Robot Toaster parent of your comment, and perhaps its user error that it posted as a reply to yours instead. My questions were meant to ask if there was a distinction between the motives of the two types of algorithms, at least without (too much) predilection, and see where the answers may fall. I happen to agree with you, actually. It's obvious to me there is a distinction between a preference-neutral recommendation algorithm vs. one juiced for corporate/profit interests. That being said, I don't appreciate personal attacks in replies and I don't think there will be any more useful comments on this matter at least on my part.