3 ms·
Unlike the “serfs” tech companies actually pay for in developing countries to do stuff manually training AI, we don’t “toil” in their “fields”. Instead, we choo
by chaostheory 3y ago
Unlike the “serfs” tech companies actually pay for in developing countries to do stuff manually training AI, we don’t “toil” in their “fields”. Instead, we choose to frolic in them. It’s a choice, and we have more of it in the developed world. Just like how we still have a choice as to where and how we work. I interact with social media for leisure and not for influence or work. Most people are just in it for bread and circus, even on HN.
His argument is terrible and nonsensical. A better analogy for the majority of the population is that tech companies are narco drug pushers and we’re the addicts. That analogy also only works if you ignore the fact that payment is cheap if you’re just paying with attention
- tmcb 3y agoScience has very solid evidence on social networks being extremely addictive, and there are growing suspicions that some companies have it like this by design. It might be a choice, yes, but this is not a black-and-white situation.
- constantcrying 3y ago>and there are growing suspicions that some companies have it like this by design That is completely ridiculous. Obviously literally every social media company wants to generate sustained user engagement, this isn't a "growing suspicion" it is their business model to act that way.
- tmcb 3y agoSorry, I am not sure if this is sarcasm :)
- itsoktocry 3y agoIt's not sarcasm. Their entire purpose is to maintain engagement, it's not a conspiracy.
- tmcb 3y agoThere are ethical and unethical ways to maintain engagement.
- tasuki 3y agoThere are effective and ineffective ways to maintain engagement. Getting users addicted is very effective. Even scarier, this doesn't even have to be conscious on part of anyone running the companies. There is no need for bad intent. Simply optimizing for engagement leads to addictiveness. (I'm not saying there's no bad intent, just that it's optional and we're screwed even without it)
- chaostheory 3y agoI’m not arguing that it’s not addictive. I’m saying that it’s cheap and not “serfdom”.
- tmcb 3y agoYou mean cheap for the user, right? In that case, I beg to differ, it is not cheap. When we are talking about highly addictive platforms, this is a zero-sum game (in which every second spent benefits the platform and only the platform in detriment of the user's own health).
- chaostheory 3y agoIt’s still a lot cheaper than alternatives such as actual work or gambling. It’s akin to cable television of yesterday, but cheaper since most people refuse to pay with fiat currency.
- bluerooibos 3y ago> for leisure You mean you're addicted like everyone else. Every platform has highly tuned algorithms designed by some of the smartest engineering and data science teams on the planet, to keep you coming back for more, and doom scrolling for hours on end.
- chaostheory 3y agoI agree, but it’s not “serfdom” and it’s very cheap.