3 ms·

> Popular content is being consumed at an astounding scale, yet popularity and even celebrity feel miniaturized, siloed. We live in a world where it’s easier th

> Popular content is being consumed at an astounding scale, yet popularity and even celebrity feel miniaturized, siloed. We live in a world where it’s easier than ever to be blissfully unaware of things that other people are consuming. I've long been trying to communicate this trend to anyone who will listen, once needs are saturated the trend becomes building specialization that produces the most hedonism/value for the individual (per unit of inputs). Taken to the limit the outcome is a product perfectly attuned to your feel good chemical receptors in your body and brain. Given a download of your brain, the future looks like generated content that is attuned to you alone, and is suboptimal for everyone else (relative to their own generated content). There will be a minor amount of novelty added to stimulate those circuits (and check the gradient for optima), but will mostly be a remix of what you already respond to. So instead of Nike choosing to produce 10, err 100, colors of shoes, they will simply make exactly the color you want, just for you (and whoever collides). Part of this will be an explosion in creativity because as an individual you will be able to express what you want and create it without the years/decades of training required to learn Script writing, or film, or the guitar, or how to sew etc. Will it be good for us or society? That's a moral argument I'm not making here. Just an observation and extrapolation of what seems to be happening.

keybored 3y ago
People have been telling sci-fi stories about society evolving/devolving into people locked into their individual pleasure boxes for decades, friend.
- haswell 3y ago
  And for the first time in the history of those stories, reality is extremely close to that fiction. The reasons those stories are told over and over is because we're highly susceptible to things that use our pleasure centers in ways that lead to maladaptive outcomes. You could reframe this to say we've collectively warned ourselves about this for decades, and we're still plunging headlong towards this future despite realizing how badly it can turn out in a worst case.
  - keybored 3y ago
    > The reasons those stories are told over and over is because we're highly susceptible to things that use our pleasure centers in ways that lead to maladaptive outcomes. That’s an outdated and primitive view. People who are rich aren’t fat simply because they have easier access to food. Non-illicit addictions (like smoking) don’t happen to people uniformly simply because nicotine is at the same supermarket that everyone goes to. If people are about to “amuse themselves to death” then that is because they are leading an unbalanced life in some way, like being overworked or not having their needs met (like “social needs”, which I hear is a thing (cannot confirm or disconfirm)). And if a lot of people have those problems? Yeah, then it becomes a societal problem. But to talk about that you would have to look beyond the symptoms. But I guess worrying about Zappaesque sex robots is more fun.
    - haswell 3y ago
      > If people are about to “amuse themselves to death” then that is because they are leading an unbalanced life in some way, like being overworked or not having their needs met This is essentially the point I’m making, i.e. “we're highly susceptible to things…”. It’s not clear to me what aspect you consider to be outdated and primitive vs. what you seem to be restating. I suspect we’re in agreement and that you may have misunderstood my comment, which was not trying to claim that people have problems just because they have access. Clearly there are systemic factors that make access more or less of an issue.
- maerF0x0 3y ago
  correct, but few people seem able to grok it.
JohnFen 3y ago
> Will it be good for us or society? It would be the end of society. Society requires a common understanding of reality, and the things you're talking about are deliberately destroying a common understanding of reality.
- akomtu 3y ago
  The machines that manage the Matrix towers believe that it's the optimal human society because it maximizes the engagement metrics (measured by dopamine levels).
latency-guy2 3y ago
Reminder that most people consume content, very few curate, and even fewer create. Responding to your comment directly: I would argue that the opposite is happening. Things are becoming more samey. An individuals interests may be an unique amalgamation, but the pieces that make up the whole definitely are not unique. > Will it be good for us or society? I would say that it would be mundane or not as impactful. Not everything in life is going to be a pivotal moment for humanity. I would even argue that too many things in life are treated as if they are.

keybored 3y ago

People have been telling sci-fi stories about society evolving/devolving into people locked into their individual pleasure boxes for decades, friend.

haswell 3y ago
And for the first time in the history of those stories, reality is extremely close to that fiction. The reasons those stories are told over and over is because we're highly susceptible to things that use our pleasure centers in ways that lead to maladaptive outcomes. You could reframe this to say we've collectively warned ourselves about this for decades, and we're still plunging headlong towards this future despite realizing how badly it can turn out in a worst case.
- keybored 3y ago
  > The reasons those stories are told over and over is because we're highly susceptible to things that use our pleasure centers in ways that lead to maladaptive outcomes. That’s an outdated and primitive view. People who are rich aren’t fat simply because they have easier access to food. Non-illicit addictions (like smoking) don’t happen to people uniformly simply because nicotine is at the same supermarket that everyone goes to. If people are about to “amuse themselves to death” then that is because they are leading an unbalanced life in some way, like being overworked or not having their needs met (like “social needs”, which I hear is a thing (cannot confirm or disconfirm)). And if a lot of people have those problems? Yeah, then it becomes a societal problem. But to talk about that you would have to look beyond the symptoms. But I guess worrying about Zappaesque sex robots is more fun.
  - haswell 3y ago
    > If people are about to “amuse themselves to death” then that is because they are leading an unbalanced life in some way, like being overworked or not having their needs met This is essentially the point I’m making, i.e. “we're highly susceptible to things…”. It’s not clear to me what aspect you consider to be outdated and primitive vs. what you seem to be restating. I suspect we’re in agreement and that you may have misunderstood my comment, which was not trying to claim that people have problems just because they have access. Clearly there are systemic factors that make access more or less of an issue.
maerF0x0 3y ago
correct, but few people seem able to grok it.

JohnFen 3y ago

> Will it be good for us or society? It would be the end of society. Society requires a common understanding of reality, and the things you're talking about are deliberately destroying a common understanding of reality.

akomtu 3y ago
The machines that manage the Matrix towers believe that it's the optimal human society because it maximizes the engagement metrics (measured by dopamine levels).

latency-guy2 3y ago

Reminder that most people consume content, very few curate, and even fewer create. Responding to your comment directly: I would argue that the opposite is happening. Things are becoming more samey. An individuals interests may be an unique amalgamation, but the pieces that make up the whole definitely are not unique. > Will it be good for us or society? I would say that it would be mundane or not as impactful. Not everything in life is going to be a pivotal moment for humanity. I would even argue that too many things in life are treated as if they are.