3 ms·

> Tesla strongly encourages providers to only collect data they need, limited to frequency that they need. If only...

by drewda 3y ago

bheadmaster 3y ago
The problem with data is that they can often reveal information you need, but didn't even know you need. The way I understand Tesla's meaning of "data they need" is the data that you know exists, know is useful, and has a predefined purpose. However, blind data mining can often bring insight that may give you an edge over competition, so the unethical data collectors have an advantage. On the other hand, collecting all available data makes you biased by the particular nature of data collected - not everthing that is measurable is important, and not everything that's important is measurable. Even 100% accurate data can lead you astray if it gives you an incomplete picture. That's how we got algorithms that optimize outrage, because outrage and stress create massive engagement.
- WWLink 3y ago
  Then you get the weird software engineers that are very defensive of spying on their users lol.
  - judge2020 3y ago
    I mean, it's all logging how users use your product. For things that aren't cloud-dependent, there are toggles in the car the user can click to turn them off, and it doesn't harm almost any functionality (of course disabling app camera access in the car will prevent you from seeing your live sentry cam in the app; it'll still record locally to the USB though).
- sodality2 3y ago
  > That's how we got algorithms that optimize outrage, because outrage and stress create massive engagement. I mean, in this case, it's not a "problem", it's a predetermined goal. It's not some sort of accident that they optimize for engagement, it's explicitly what they want to optimize for. The fact that it causes harmful interaction isn't an unwanted side effect, at least for the social media company, but a means to an end.
  - hatthew 3y ago
    It is absolutely an accident. Engagement recommender systems do not optimize for outrage, they optimize for engagement. It just turns out that outrage causes engagement. The difference is that at no point is there a human who says "Let's cause outrage!" It's the algorithms that figure out the connection, which is the point being made by the person you replied to.
    - mrguyorama 3y ago
      The second it became clear that outrage causes more engagement than anything else, using an engagement optimizing system became equivalent to pushing for outrage. You cannot do otherwise without EXTREME intervention.
  - bheadmaster 3y ago
    The assumption is that engagement = good for business. I personally believe it isn't, as I've personally quit all social networks (notwithstanding HN and a few private communities) because they made me addicted and unhappy. Unhappy users stay because they're addicted, and a part of them quits. Happy users stay because they want to. Not making people unhappy is good for business. Or at least I hope it is...

> Tesla strongly encourages providers to only collect data they need, limited to frequency that they need. If only...

by drewda 3y ago

> Tesla strongly encourages providers to only collect data they need, limited to frequency that they need. If only...

The problem with data is that they can often reveal information you need, but didn't even know you need. The way I understand Tesla's meaning of "data they need" is the data that you know exists, know is useful, and has a predefined purpose. However, blind data mining can often bring insight that may give you an edge over competition, so the unethical data collectors have an advantage. On the other hand, collecting all available data makes you biased by the particular nature of data collected - not everthing that is measurable is important, and not everything that's important is measurable. Even 100% accurate data can lead you astray if it gives you an incomplete picture. That's how we got algorithms that optimize outrage, because outrage and stress create massive engagement.

WWLink 3y ago
Then you get the weird software engineers that are very defensive of spying on their users lol.
- judge2020 3y ago
  I mean, it's all logging how users use your product. For things that aren't cloud-dependent, there are toggles in the car the user can click to turn them off, and it doesn't harm almost any functionality (of course disabling app camera access in the car will prevent you from seeing your live sentry cam in the app; it'll still record locally to the USB though).
sodality2 3y ago
> That's how we got algorithms that optimize outrage, because outrage and stress create massive engagement. I mean, in this case, it's not a "problem", it's a predetermined goal. It's not some sort of accident that they optimize for engagement, it's explicitly what they want to optimize for. The fact that it causes harmful interaction isn't an unwanted side effect, at least for the social media company, but a means to an end.
- hatthew 3y ago
  It is absolutely an accident. Engagement recommender systems do not optimize for outrage, they optimize for engagement. It just turns out that outrage causes engagement. The difference is that at no point is there a human who says "Let's cause outrage!" It's the algorithms that figure out the connection, which is the point being made by the person you replied to.
  - mrguyorama 3y ago
    The second it became clear that outrage causes more engagement than anything else, using an engagement optimizing system became equivalent to pushing for outrage. You cannot do otherwise without EXTREME intervention.
- bheadmaster 3y ago
  The assumption is that engagement = good for business. I personally believe it isn't, as I've personally quit all social networks (notwithstanding HN and a few private communities) because they made me addicted and unhappy. Unhappy users stay because they're addicted, and a part of them quits. Happy users stay because they want to. Not making people unhappy is good for business. Or at least I hope it is...