3 ms·

Are you saying that hope is naive and irresponsible?

by FloorEgg 11mo ago

intended 11mo ago
What you are hoping for will not occur. Do hope. But hoping for a unicorn is magic thinking. For other people, they can either count this as a reason to despair, or figure out a way to get to the next best option. The world sucks, so what ? In the end all problems get solved if you can figure them out.
- FloorEgg 11mo ago
  For decades I have continuously studied physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, history, management science, market research, economics, religion, finance, and computer science among many other things. I study for 4-5 hours on average every day, and the rest of my working hours are spent practicing my craft. The reason I say this is that blind hope and informed hope are two different things. Media has always relied on novel fear to attract attention. It's always "dramatized"; sacrificing truth for what sells. However AI is like electricity or computation. People make it to get things done. Some of those things may be media, but it will also be applied to everything else people want to get done. The thing about tools is that if they don't work people won't keep using them. And the thing about lies is that they don't work. For all of human history people have become more informed and capable. More conveniences, more capabilities, more ideas, more access to knowledge, tools, etc. What makes you think that AI is somehow different than all other human invention that came before it? It's just more automation. Bad people will automate bad things, good people will automate good things. I don't have a problem with people pointing out risks and wanting to mitigate them, but I do have a problem with invalid presuppositions that the future will be worse than the past. So no, I don't think I'm hoping for a unicorn. I think I'm hoping that my intuition for how the universe works is close enough, and the persistent pessimism that seems to permeate from social media is wrong.
  - defrost 11mo ago
    Speaking as someone who has also spent decades both studying and applying STEM and social sciences my commentary is this: > The thing about tools is that if they don't work people won't use them. People will and do use tools that don't work. Over time fewer people use bad tools as word spreads. Often "new" bad tools have a halo uptake of popularity. > And the thing about lies is that they don't work. History tells us that lies work in the short term, and that is sufficient to force bad decisions that have long shadows.
    - FloorEgg 11mo ago
      > The thing about tools is that if they don't work people won't use them. My bad. I meant won't keep using them. > History tells us that lies work in the short term, and that is sufficient to force bad decisions that have long shadows. What do you mean by "work"? It sounds like you are implying that a lie "works" by convincing people to believe it? I meant a lie doesn't work in that if you follow the lie you will make incorrect predictions about the future. If someone acts on a lie which results in a bad decision with a "long shadow" then wouldn't that mean acting out the lie didn't work?
      - defrost 11mo ago
        Lies work in the sense that they can persuade large groups of people to take courses of action based on their beleif in those lies. They are used by bad actors to, say, win elections and then destroy systemic safeguards and monitoring mechanisms that work to spotlight bad actions and limit damage. There are also lies, such as a common belief in Wagyl, that draw people to together and act in unison as a community to help the less fortunate, preserve the environment and common resources, and other things not generally perceived as destructive.
        FloorEgg 11mo ago
        > Lies work in the sense that they can persuade large groups of people to take courses of action based on their beleif in those lies. I don't disagree with this. It's reasonable to assume I was talking about that type of "work", but I wasn't. > There are also lies, such as a common belief in Wagyl, that draw people to together and act in unison as a community to help the less fortunate, preserve the environment and common resources, and other things not generally perceived as destructive. I am not familiar with this specific culture but I totally get your point. Most religion works like this. I would just consider that the virtues and principles embedded within the stories and traditions are the actual truths that work, and that Wagyl and the specifics of the stories are just along for the ride. The reason I believe this is because other religions with similar virtues and values will have similar outcomes even though the lie they believe in is completely different. I said that lies destroy, and that wasn't right. Sometimes they do, but as you have pointed out, often they don't.
  - intended 11mo ago
    I applaud your efforts! You stated: > I really hope that AI business models don't fall into relying on getting and keeping attention. I also hope the creators of them exist in a win-win relationship with society as a whole. The ratio of total hours of human attention available to total hours of content is essentially 0. We have infinite content, which creates unique pressures on our information gathering and consumption ability. Information markets tend to consolidate, regulating speech is beyond fraught, and competition is on engagement, not factuality. Competing on accuracy requires either Bloomberg Terminal levels of payment, or you being subsidized by a billionaire. Content competes with content, factual or otherwise. My neck of the words is content moderation, misinformation, and related sundry horrors against thought, speech and human minds. Based on my experience, I find this hope naive. I do think it is in the right direction, and agree that measured interventions for the problems we face are the correct solution. The answer to that, for me, is simply data and research on what actually works for online speech and information health.
    - FloorEgg 11mo ago
      It feels to me like everyone responding to that comment is irrationally pessimistic. However I keep noticing little mistakes in my own wording that alter the meaning away from my intention, and I can't help but think it's my own fault for not making my point more clear. > I really hope that AI business models don't fall into relying on getting and keeping attention. What I really meant is that I hope that the economic pressures on media don't naturally also apply to AI. I do think it's naive to hope that AI won't be used in media to compete for attention, I just don't think it's naive to hope that's not the only economic incentive for its development. I also hope that it becomes a commodity, like electricity, and spills far and wide outside of the control of any monopoly or oligopoly (beyond the "tech giants"), so that hoping tech giants do anything against their incentive structures is moot. I hope that the pressures that motivate AIs development are overwhelmingly demand for truth, so that it evolves overwhelmingly towards providing it. If this hope is naive, that would imply the universe favors deception over truth, death over life, and ultimately doesn't want us to understand it. To me, that implication seems naive. The Bloomberg terminal is an interesting example and I see your point. I guess the question is what information is there a stronger incentive to keep scarce. The thing about Bloomberg terminals are that people are paying for immediate access to brand new information to compete in a near-zero-sum game. Most truth is everlasting insight into how to get work done. A counter example are textbooks.
gdulli 11mo ago
Hoping that the tech giants will put truth over profit is folly. Hoping that audiences will reject this is viable.
- deleted 11mo ago
  [deleted]
- FloorEgg 11mo ago
  > Hoping that the tech giants will put truth over profit is folly. I never said that though? > Hoping that audiences will reject this is viable. I have no clue what you mean. What is "this" refering to?

Are you saying that hope is naive and irresponsible?

What you are hoping for will not occur. Do hope. But hoping for a unicorn is magic thinking. For other people, they can either count this as a reason to despair, or figure out a way to get to the next best option. The world sucks, so what ? In the end all problems get solved if you can figure them out.

FloorEgg 11mo ago
For decades I have continuously studied physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, history, management science, market research, economics, religion, finance, and computer science among many other things. I study for 4-5 hours on average every day, and the rest of my working hours are spent practicing my craft. The reason I say this is that blind hope and informed hope are two different things. Media has always relied on novel fear to attract attention. It's always "dramatized"; sacrificing truth for what sells. However AI is like electricity or computation. People make it to get things done. Some of those things may be media, but it will also be applied to everything else people want to get done. The thing about tools is that if they don't work people won't keep using them. And the thing about lies is that they don't work. For all of human history people have become more informed and capable. More conveniences, more capabilities, more ideas, more access to knowledge, tools, etc. What makes you think that AI is somehow different than all other human invention that came before it? It's just more automation. Bad people will automate bad things, good people will automate good things. I don't have a problem with people pointing out risks and wanting to mitigate them, but I do have a problem with invalid presuppositions that the future will be worse than the past. So no, I don't think I'm hoping for a unicorn. I think I'm hoping that my intuition for how the universe works is close enough, and the persistent pessimism that seems to permeate from social media is wrong.
- defrost 11mo ago
  Speaking as someone who has also spent decades both studying and applying STEM and social sciences my commentary is this: > The thing about tools is that if they don't work people won't use them. People will and do use tools that don't work. Over time fewer people use bad tools as word spreads. Often "new" bad tools have a halo uptake of popularity. > And the thing about lies is that they don't work. History tells us that lies work in the short term, and that is sufficient to force bad decisions that have long shadows.
  - FloorEgg 11mo ago
    > The thing about tools is that if they don't work people won't use them. My bad. I meant won't keep using them. > History tells us that lies work in the short term, and that is sufficient to force bad decisions that have long shadows. What do you mean by "work"? It sounds like you are implying that a lie "works" by convincing people to believe it? I meant a lie doesn't work in that if you follow the lie you will make incorrect predictions about the future. If someone acts on a lie which results in a bad decision with a "long shadow" then wouldn't that mean acting out the lie didn't work?
    - defrost 11mo ago
      Lies work in the sense that they can persuade large groups of people to take courses of action based on their beleif in those lies. They are used by bad actors to, say, win elections and then destroy systemic safeguards and monitoring mechanisms that work to spotlight bad actions and limit damage. There are also lies, such as a common belief in Wagyl, that draw people to together and act in unison as a community to help the less fortunate, preserve the environment and common resources, and other things not generally perceived as destructive.
      - FloorEgg 11mo ago
        > Lies work in the sense that they can persuade large groups of people to take courses of action based on their beleif in those lies. I don't disagree with this. It's reasonable to assume I was talking about that type of "work", but I wasn't. > There are also lies, such as a common belief in Wagyl, that draw people to together and act in unison as a community to help the less fortunate, preserve the environment and common resources, and other things not generally perceived as destructive. I am not familiar with this specific culture but I totally get your point. Most religion works like this. I would just consider that the virtues and principles embedded within the stories and traditions are the actual truths that work, and that Wagyl and the specifics of the stories are just along for the ride. The reason I believe this is because other religions with similar virtues and values will have similar outcomes even though the lie they believe in is completely different. I said that lies destroy, and that wasn't right. Sometimes they do, but as you have pointed out, often they don't.
- intended 11mo ago
  I applaud your efforts! You stated: > I really hope that AI business models don't fall into relying on getting and keeping attention. I also hope the creators of them exist in a win-win relationship with society as a whole. The ratio of total hours of human attention available to total hours of content is essentially 0. We have infinite content, which creates unique pressures on our information gathering and consumption ability. Information markets tend to consolidate, regulating speech is beyond fraught, and competition is on engagement, not factuality. Competing on accuracy requires either Bloomberg Terminal levels of payment, or you being subsidized by a billionaire. Content competes with content, factual or otherwise. My neck of the words is content moderation, misinformation, and related sundry horrors against thought, speech and human minds. Based on my experience, I find this hope naive. I do think it is in the right direction, and agree that measured interventions for the problems we face are the correct solution. The answer to that, for me, is simply data and research on what actually works for online speech and information health.
  - FloorEgg 11mo ago
    It feels to me like everyone responding to that comment is irrationally pessimistic. However I keep noticing little mistakes in my own wording that alter the meaning away from my intention, and I can't help but think it's my own fault for not making my point more clear. > I really hope that AI business models don't fall into relying on getting and keeping attention. What I really meant is that I hope that the economic pressures on media don't naturally also apply to AI. I do think it's naive to hope that AI won't be used in media to compete for attention, I just don't think it's naive to hope that's not the only economic incentive for its development. I also hope that it becomes a commodity, like electricity, and spills far and wide outside of the control of any monopoly or oligopoly (beyond the "tech giants"), so that hoping tech giants do anything against their incentive structures is moot. I hope that the pressures that motivate AIs development are overwhelmingly demand for truth, so that it evolves overwhelmingly towards providing it. If this hope is naive, that would imply the universe favors deception over truth, death over life, and ultimately doesn't want us to understand it. To me, that implication seems naive. The Bloomberg terminal is an interesting example and I see your point. I guess the question is what information is there a stronger incentive to keep scarce. The thing about Bloomberg terminals are that people are paying for immediate access to brand new information to compete in a near-zero-sum game. Most truth is everlasting insight into how to get work done. A counter example are textbooks.

gdulli 11mo ago

Hoping that the tech giants will put truth over profit is folly. Hoping that audiences will reject this is viable.

deleted 11mo ago
[deleted]
FloorEgg 11mo ago
> Hoping that the tech giants will put truth over profit is folly. I never said that though? > Hoping that audiences will reject this is viable. I have no clue what you mean. What is "this" refering to?