6 ms·

A lot of technology disruptions happen by a "bait and switch" approach. A new technology appear that promises to produce something at a much higher efficiency a

by kzz102 3y ago

A lot of technology disruptions happen by a "bait and switch" approach. A new technology appear that promises to produce something at a much higher efficiency and much lower cost. Only after it already took over the market did people discover that it was not the same product. The disruption, while often has genuine merit, also sneakily changes some fundamental assumptions that people held over the product. This is not new: for example, products of industrial farming are often significantly different from products of traditional farming. However, it is a better product in the sense of market competition. This mechanism is considered the engine of growth for society. I think products that consists of human communication are fundamentally different: this assumption of "disruption is good" is more likely to be false. Even existing technology that aim at changing human communications, like emails and social networks, end up having serious negative effects. AI based culture and communication product is changing one of the basic assumptions of human communications: that the communication is produced by a human. I can't help but being sad and pessimistic about that future.

A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago
The fascinating thing about is that while we will obviously see a rise of crap overall, organic labor will become even more expensive, because actual expertise and knowledge will be that much rarer. I try not to see it in absolutes. It appears that it will be a big shift on how things are done, but it will also further change my perception of privacy. Just the other day I read a story about Wendy's doing a test run in their drive through. I shiver at all that information hoovered down at every single step. And here I was thinking Transmetropolitan was a crazy fantasy.
version_five 3y ago
I think I understand what you mean about farming. The toppings you buy at subway that are essentially water in some limp cell matrix bear little resemblance to vegetables. But objectively, modern farming had been providing more and more for us from the neolithic onwards and is responsible for how so many of us can be fed. A more recent example of bait and switch would be Uber and Airbnb which started with some promise (cheaper, easier to use, more accountability) but once you add in all the chestertons fences that were part of the legacy industries they "disrupted" - safety, paying market wages, profitability, they revert back to the legacy system.
- jancsika 3y ago
  > The toppings you buy at subway that are essentially water in some limp cell matrix bear little resemblance to vegetables. How are these different from the vegetables produced by traditional farming? If I take someone who has always eaten the vegetables from traditional farming and switch them to Subway vegetables, what measurable change happens to that person?
  - version_five 3y ago
    I have no idea about a measurable change. But I know that given the choice I would choose a flavorful tomato with bright color over the pale thing that you get at subway. My stereotype of traditional vegetables is smaller and tastier. Same as chickens, etc. Modern food is optimized for bulking up quickly. Thus my interpretation of the original "bait and switch" comment.
  - MrVandemar 3y ago
    > How are these different from the vegetables produced by traditional farming? Oh, they are very different. As with most modern systems, and noted above, food grown on industrial scales are not optimised for the traditional qualities of nutrition or taste. This is capitalism: they are optimised for speed of growth, bulk, shelf-life, and whether they tolerate pesticides and herbicides. The latter is not only to reduce "weeds", but also so they can kill all the plants and harvest the product, rather than let the plant naturally die. They are also grown with enormous fossil-fuel inputs. Find someone who grows heritage vegetables, preferably organic, and taste the difference. Most "farms" these days are simply titanic open-air factories.
    - version_five 3y ago
      I got modded down for my upstream post too. I have to admit it's a bit surprising to see anti-heritage vegetable sentiments here (or really anywhere) but there you go.
    - jancsika 3y ago
      > Find someone who grows heritage vegetables, preferably organic, and taste the difference. The heritage vegetables are delicious. What is the nutritional difference between the delicious vegetables and the ones from Subway?
comfypotato 3y ago
Your negative takeaway is entirely based on perspective. Nothing you mentioned is necessarily negative. Take your mention of email for example. Sure, it’s introduced some new annoyances. Its net effect of providing an instant long-form asynchronous communication is hugely positive. On the “was this made by a human” front, I think society will adapt. LLMs will introduce bigger problems than email (I’m already dreading the hellscape of fake product reviews) but the net effect will be hugely positive.
- kzz102 3y ago
  Actually I think all the things that happened up to now is probably a net positive. However there seems to be a trend that the closer the technology is related to human communication, the less obvious it's a positive. It's probably true that all arguments about negative outlooks of new technology is "this time it's different". This time it does feel different to me. I think our interest in speech and information is not separable from the implicit assumption that they were created by a human. Humans may transcend that and become some kind of enlightened being, but I am not optimistic that we can adapt that fast, if at all.
  - comfypotato 3y ago
    I agree that the negative effects on pseudo-anonymous internet communication (even blog posts, news, etc.) are going to be drastic. That’s not necessarily a bad thing for the net human experience (it may be, only time will tell). It strikes me a bit humorously actually: what you’re worried about may improve many of the negative effects of social media (and the internet in general) because people will stop using them once they are inundated with AI. The most rewarding communication, 100% of the time, is in person for me. In-person communication is much more critical to the human experience I think. That and non-anonymous internet communication like texts, Discord, Telegram, WhatsApp, etc.. LLMs are going to make incredibly huge positive changes across many industries. I think the net human experience is in for a significant positive boost.

by kzz102 3y ago

A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago

The fascinating thing about is that while we will obviously see a rise of crap overall, organic labor will become even more expensive, because actual expertise and knowledge will be that much rarer. I try not to see it in absolutes. It appears that it will be a big shift on how things are done, but it will also further change my perception of privacy. Just the other day I read a story about Wendy's doing a test run in their drive through. I shiver at all that information hoovered down at every single step. And here I was thinking Transmetropolitan was a crazy fantasy.

version_five 3y ago

I think I understand what you mean about farming. The toppings you buy at subway that are essentially water in some limp cell matrix bear little resemblance to vegetables. But objectively, modern farming had been providing more and more for us from the neolithic onwards and is responsible for how so many of us can be fed. A more recent example of bait and switch would be Uber and Airbnb which started with some promise (cheaper, easier to use, more accountability) but once you add in all the chestertons fences that were part of the legacy industries they "disrupted" - safety, paying market wages, profitability, they revert back to the legacy system.

jancsika 3y ago
> The toppings you buy at subway that are essentially water in some limp cell matrix bear little resemblance to vegetables. How are these different from the vegetables produced by traditional farming? If I take someone who has always eaten the vegetables from traditional farming and switch them to Subway vegetables, what measurable change happens to that person?
- version_five 3y ago
  I have no idea about a measurable change. But I know that given the choice I would choose a flavorful tomato with bright color over the pale thing that you get at subway. My stereotype of traditional vegetables is smaller and tastier. Same as chickens, etc. Modern food is optimized for bulking up quickly. Thus my interpretation of the original "bait and switch" comment.
- MrVandemar 3y ago
  > How are these different from the vegetables produced by traditional farming? Oh, they are very different. As with most modern systems, and noted above, food grown on industrial scales are not optimised for the traditional qualities of nutrition or taste. This is capitalism: they are optimised for speed of growth, bulk, shelf-life, and whether they tolerate pesticides and herbicides. The latter is not only to reduce "weeds", but also so they can kill all the plants and harvest the product, rather than let the plant naturally die. They are also grown with enormous fossil-fuel inputs. Find someone who grows heritage vegetables, preferably organic, and taste the difference. Most "farms" these days are simply titanic open-air factories.
  - version_five 3y ago
    I got modded down for my upstream post too. I have to admit it's a bit surprising to see anti-heritage vegetable sentiments here (or really anywhere) but there you go.
  - jancsika 3y ago
    > Find someone who grows heritage vegetables, preferably organic, and taste the difference. The heritage vegetables are delicious. What is the nutritional difference between the delicious vegetables and the ones from Subway?

comfypotato 3y ago

Your negative takeaway is entirely based on perspective. Nothing you mentioned is necessarily negative. Take your mention of email for example. Sure, it’s introduced some new annoyances. Its net effect of providing an instant long-form asynchronous communication is hugely positive. On the “was this made by a human” front, I think society will adapt. LLMs will introduce bigger problems than email (I’m already dreading the hellscape of fake product reviews) but the net effect will be hugely positive.

kzz102 3y ago
Actually I think all the things that happened up to now is probably a net positive. However there seems to be a trend that the closer the technology is related to human communication, the less obvious it's a positive. It's probably true that all arguments about negative outlooks of new technology is "this time it's different". This time it does feel different to me. I think our interest in speech and information is not separable from the implicit assumption that they were created by a human. Humans may transcend that and become some kind of enlightened being, but I am not optimistic that we can adapt that fast, if at all.
- comfypotato 3y ago
  I agree that the negative effects on pseudo-anonymous internet communication (even blog posts, news, etc.) are going to be drastic. That’s not necessarily a bad thing for the net human experience (it may be, only time will tell). It strikes me a bit humorously actually: what you’re worried about may improve many of the negative effects of social media (and the internet in general) because people will stop using them once they are inundated with AI. The most rewarding communication, 100% of the time, is in person for me. In-person communication is much more critical to the human experience I think. That and non-anonymous internet communication like texts, Discord, Telegram, WhatsApp, etc.. LLMs are going to make incredibly huge positive changes across many industries. I think the net human experience is in for a significant positive boost.