4 ms·

I think you are generally correct in where things will likely go (sometimes correct goop) but the problem I think will be far more existential; when people star

by zeruch 3y ago

I think you are generally correct in where things will likely go (sometimes correct goop) but the problem I think will be far more existential; when people start to feel like they are in a perpetual uncanny valley of noise, what DO they actually do next? I don't think we have even the remotest grasp of what that might look like and how it will impact us.

kbrkbr 3y ago
That is an interesting thought. Maybe the problem is not the ai generated useless noise, but that it is so easy and cheap to publish it. One possible future is going back to a medium with higher cost of publication. Books. Handchiseled stone tablets. Offering information costs something.
- BetaDeltaAlpha 3y ago
  This was the original use case of bitcoin's Proof of Work system. Initally it was to impose a (nominal) fee on senders of email by mail clients. If you didn't submit a proof of work of N or greater difficulty the email would be thrown out.
- latexr 3y ago
  > One possible future is going back to a medium with higher cost of publication. Books. The grifters are all over that already. No AI necessary to generate and publish drivel. See “Contrepreneurs: The Mikkelsen Twins”¹ by Dan Olson² for an informative and entertaining documentary on the matter. ¹ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biYciU1uiUw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biYciU1uiUw ² A.k.a Folding Ideas. A.k.a. the creator of “Line Goes Up – The Problem With NFTs”.
- Swizec 3y ago
  > One possible future is going back to a medium with higher cost of publication. Books Honestly I’ve switched to books and papers a few years ago and it has been fantastic. 2 hours of reading a half decent book or paper outweighs a week of reading the best blogposts, twitter threads, or YouTube videos.
  - tjr 3y ago
    Do you have a favorite source for papers?
    - Swizec 3y ago
      HN surfaces a lot of good ones. Sometimes friends recommend stuff. Or I search for things I'm interested in. Then once you have a hook into your topic, it usually cites 30+ other papers that may be worth reading. You will never run out.
  - sanroot99 3y ago
    I generally go to cited papers in Wikipedia articles
- penjelly 3y ago
  fun thought: its more reliable to store information on stone tablets over very long time periods of time then it is harddrives or other modern data storage devices
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Tiktaalik 3y ago
Spending less time on the internet in general or perhaps hyper strict closed off walled garden social networks for humans only.
- soupfordummies 3y ago
  ...Leading to the interesting thought-experiment/SF-story-concept of, "how do you prove you're human to a computer?"
jt2190 3y ago
I think we have plenty of examples of published “noise”, probably just not on the same scale. (“Noise” is subjective of course: I don’t watch reality television but others do, for example.) For the most part, I just ignore “noise”, so I suspect that the entire World Wide Web will eventually be considered “noise” by many. Instead it seems like it will be necessary to deploy AI to retrieve information as it will be necessary to programmatically evaluate the received content to filter out anything that you’ve trained it to consider “noise”.
- zeruch 3y ago
  "(“Noise” is subjective of course: I don’t watch reality television but others do, for example.)" This brings up a good sub-topic. "Noise" as I mean it is where it's something you cannot definitely validate the veracity of in short order, or you do and it's useless. The trash TV thing is a great example: if you are watching Beavis & Butthead because you know its trash and you need to zone out, that's a conscious, active decision, and you are in effect, 'in on the joke'...if you can't discern that it's satire and find yourself relating to the characters, you might be part of the problem :)

by zeruch 3y ago

kbrkbr 3y ago

That is an interesting thought. Maybe the problem is not the ai generated useless noise, but that it is so easy and cheap to publish it. One possible future is going back to a medium with higher cost of publication. Books. Handchiseled stone tablets. Offering information costs something.

BetaDeltaAlpha 3y ago
This was the original use case of bitcoin's Proof of Work system. Initally it was to impose a (nominal) fee on senders of email by mail clients. If you didn't submit a proof of work of N or greater difficulty the email would be thrown out.
latexr 3y ago
> One possible future is going back to a medium with higher cost of publication. Books. The grifters are all over that already. No AI necessary to generate and publish drivel. See “Contrepreneurs: The Mikkelsen Twins”¹ by Dan Olson² for an informative and entertaining documentary on the matter. ¹ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biYciU1uiUw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biYciU1uiUw ² A.k.a Folding Ideas. A.k.a. the creator of “Line Goes Up – The Problem With NFTs”.
Swizec 3y ago
> One possible future is going back to a medium with higher cost of publication. Books Honestly I’ve switched to books and papers a few years ago and it has been fantastic. 2 hours of reading a half decent book or paper outweighs a week of reading the best blogposts, twitter threads, or YouTube videos.
- tjr 3y ago
  Do you have a favorite source for papers?
  - Swizec 3y ago
    HN surfaces a lot of good ones. Sometimes friends recommend stuff. Or I search for things I'm interested in. Then once you have a hook into your topic, it usually cites 30+ other papers that may be worth reading. You will never run out.
- sanroot99 3y ago
  I generally go to cited papers in Wikipedia articles
penjelly 3y ago
fun thought: its more reliable to store information on stone tablets over very long time periods of time then it is harddrives or other modern data storage devices

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

Tiktaalik 3y ago

Spending less time on the internet in general or perhaps hyper strict closed off walled garden social networks for humans only.

soupfordummies 3y ago
...Leading to the interesting thought-experiment/SF-story-concept of, "how do you prove you're human to a computer?"

jt2190 3y ago

I think we have plenty of examples of published “noise”, probably just not on the same scale. (“Noise” is subjective of course: I don’t watch reality television but others do, for example.) For the most part, I just ignore “noise”, so I suspect that the entire World Wide Web will eventually be considered “noise” by many. Instead it seems like it will be necessary to deploy AI to retrieve information as it will be necessary to programmatically evaluate the received content to filter out anything that you’ve trained it to consider “noise”.

zeruch 3y ago
"(“Noise” is subjective of course: I don’t watch reality television but others do, for example.)" This brings up a good sub-topic. "Noise" as I mean it is where it's something you cannot definitely validate the veracity of in short order, or you do and it's useless. The trash TV thing is a great example: if you are watching Beavis & Butthead because you know its trash and you need to zone out, that's a conscious, active decision, and you are in effect, 'in on the joke'...if you can't discern that it's satire and find yourself relating to the characters, you might be part of the problem :)