3 ms·

if the same circumstance happend due to human clerical error by a local delivery shop would you consider it enslavement or just an honest mistake. I think ther

if the same circumstance happend due to human clerical error by a local delivery shop would you consider it enslavement or just an honest mistake. I think theres a weird tribal alignment angle in your interpretation of the scenario. You consider computers and machines to be an other, and so in this circumstance youre mind is framing it as subjugation.

mindslight 2y ago
The problem isn't computers being considered an "other", but rather that other people are using computers to unilaterally scale up the implementation of their own negligence/biases/"policy" while also insulating themselves from corrective feedback or other repercussions. This makes poor results feel willful rather than being considered honest mistakes.
- wegfawefgawefg 2y ago
  The first part isnt really an assertion of fact but of perspective. Consider if the delivery logistics tracking was executed by men working with paper in an office in the 1920's, and the policy was a managers. That is still "unilateral" as people who are not the manager dont have control over the policy, nor necessarily the capital to create a competitor policy. Additionally, there is corrective feedback. This errant policy costs the delivery company reputation, sales, time, customers. In so far as the error signal isnt so small as to be buried under the noise floor, in which case it isnt a very serious issue, its repurcussions will be felt.
  - mindslight 2y ago
    Your first part is relying on some assertion that scale makes no difference, when the whole crux of the matter is that it does. If a person bumps into you on the sidewalk, you will give them the benefit of the doubt. If that person has done it to a bunch of other people, you likely won't have as much tolerance. If that person is being paid to get in your way (eg using social engineering to put trashvertisements in people's hands), you likely won't have any. Your second part is channeling the efficient market fallacy, and then tautologically writing off "small" problems as not important enough. But once again, the problem is the scale itself. Something that hurts 0.01% of customers/users is never going to move the needle of organizational feedback, but at a scale of ten million customers/users that is still 1000 people that get hurt. Human scale limits fan out and allows direct feedback, surveillance industry scale does neither.
    - wegfawefgawefg 2y ago
      I think there are flaws in this reasoning. To reiterate my point from before incase there was misunderstanding: Scale applies before computers. If it is matter of subjugation now it would also apply 200 years ago to designated bread makers in London, or to clerical errors involving iron shipments in the 1860s that resulted in ship crew deaths. Even if you see those as the same as now, the poster I was responding to seemed upset by the otherness of the machine made decision, the algorithmic identity, which is the topic of the post, hence me making a point of it. Lets now consider your idea that scale makes things evil: Would any level of scale of production or service beyond your nearest friends and family implicitly become evil? No service is 100% efficient. Mistakes resulting in a few cents increased costs on any mass produced goods result in millions of dollars of cost absorbed by consumers. That isnt a statement of harm, it is just fact. But the alternative is no bread for most people. Its just a matter of practicality. Is all bread that is not homemade evil to you? Thirdly, companies often make corrections for minority error cases. This happens all the time in video games played by millions of people. They will patch out some bug that affected a small minority of players. There is a limited amount of effort that can be put forth to solve problems. Ranking problems from largest to smallest is not an unreasonable policy. I just dont know what your criticisms would lead you to propose as practical alternatives. It seems pointless.
      - mindslight 2y ago
        From Wikipedia: > As of December 31, 2020, the platform [DoorDash] was used by 450,000 merchants, 20,000,000 consumers, and over one million delivery couriers ("Dashers") Do you have examples of bread makers or ship crews where a handful of people directed a million workers, directly without intermediaries that could make their own decisions? > Lets now consider your idea that scale makes things evil: Would any level of scale of production or service beyond your nearest friends and family implicitly become evil? The flaw is in your reasoning. Just because some level of scaling is good, does not mean that any level of scaling is good. You're ignoring that quantitative differences create qualitative differences.
        wegfawefgawefg 2y ago
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

mindslight 2y ago

The problem isn't computers being considered an "other", but rather that other people are using computers to unilaterally scale up the implementation of their own negligence/biases/"policy" while also insulating themselves from corrective feedback or other repercussions. This makes poor results feel willful rather than being considered honest mistakes.

wegfawefgawefg 2y ago
The first part isnt really an assertion of fact but of perspective. Consider if the delivery logistics tracking was executed by men working with paper in an office in the 1920's, and the policy was a managers. That is still "unilateral" as people who are not the manager dont have control over the policy, nor necessarily the capital to create a competitor policy. Additionally, there is corrective feedback. This errant policy costs the delivery company reputation, sales, time, customers. In so far as the error signal isnt so small as to be buried under the noise floor, in which case it isnt a very serious issue, its repurcussions will be felt.
- mindslight 2y ago
  Your first part is relying on some assertion that scale makes no difference, when the whole crux of the matter is that it does. If a person bumps into you on the sidewalk, you will give them the benefit of the doubt. If that person has done it to a bunch of other people, you likely won't have as much tolerance. If that person is being paid to get in your way (eg using social engineering to put trashvertisements in people's hands), you likely won't have any. Your second part is channeling the efficient market fallacy, and then tautologically writing off "small" problems as not important enough. But once again, the problem is the scale itself. Something that hurts 0.01% of customers/users is never going to move the needle of organizational feedback, but at a scale of ten million customers/users that is still 1000 people that get hurt. Human scale limits fan out and allows direct feedback, surveillance industry scale does neither.
  - wegfawefgawefg 2y ago
    I think there are flaws in this reasoning. To reiterate my point from before incase there was misunderstanding: Scale applies before computers. If it is matter of subjugation now it would also apply 200 years ago to designated bread makers in London, or to clerical errors involving iron shipments in the 1860s that resulted in ship crew deaths. Even if you see those as the same as now, the poster I was responding to seemed upset by the otherness of the machine made decision, the algorithmic identity, which is the topic of the post, hence me making a point of it. Lets now consider your idea that scale makes things evil: Would any level of scale of production or service beyond your nearest friends and family implicitly become evil? No service is 100% efficient. Mistakes resulting in a few cents increased costs on any mass produced goods result in millions of dollars of cost absorbed by consumers. That isnt a statement of harm, it is just fact. But the alternative is no bread for most people. Its just a matter of practicality. Is all bread that is not homemade evil to you? Thirdly, companies often make corrections for minority error cases. This happens all the time in video games played by millions of people. They will patch out some bug that affected a small minority of players. There is a limited amount of effort that can be put forth to solve problems. Ranking problems from largest to smallest is not an unreasonable policy. I just dont know what your criticisms would lead you to propose as practical alternatives. It seems pointless.
    - mindslight 2y ago
      From Wikipedia: > As of December 31, 2020, the platform [DoorDash] was used by 450,000 merchants, 20,000,000 consumers, and over one million delivery couriers ("Dashers") Do you have examples of bread makers or ship crews where a handful of people directed a million workers, directly without intermediaries that could make their own decisions? > Lets now consider your idea that scale makes things evil: Would any level of scale of production or service beyond your nearest friends and family implicitly become evil? The flaw is in your reasoning. Just because some level of scaling is good, does not mean that any level of scaling is good. You're ignoring that quantitative differences create qualitative differences.
      - wegfawefgawefg 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]