3 ms·

I always find it interesting how, in Reddit any trivial fight or even just different opinions, the advice it's always to end the relationship.

abpavel 7mo ago
You deserve better
- yabutlivnWoods 7mo ago
  A very sycophantic AI style answer. Code bot equivalent being all "you are absolutely right! Here is the unequivocal fix for now and all time!"
  - finghin 7mo ago
    No one would ever have made that comment before GPT. I have a feeling you could be the one that’s poisoned!
- deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
PhoenixFlame101 7mo ago
The power of an echo chamber; makes extremism seem logical.
- MaxBarraclough 7mo ago
  I think it's more than just an echo chamber, it's the community wanting drama more than it wants to help people.
roncesvalles 7mo ago
I mean... it's a solution guaranteed to work in a trivial sense. It's not meant to be a serious suggestion but more of a thought experiment, like "hold this as the bar, can you find a solution better than this?" It's like what GiveDirectly says: all charitable interventions should be benchmarked against simply giving the beneficiaries a wad of cash.
fortmeier 7mo ago
I think it is some kind of survivership bias. Who is going to give advise on reddit? Maybe people shying away from difficult social interactions?
- somenameforme 7mo ago
  Paired with the echo chamber effect voting systems create. Anything that affirms the biases of a majority of upvoters gets elevated, anything that contradicts it gets hidden, and so you not infrequently end up with ubiquitous nonsense that then further reinforces the echo chamber as they become self assured. Then real life intervenes, completely goes against the online zeitgeist, and they're all confused.
  - DeathArrow 7mo ago
    If you want to get poor fast, you can follow the most up voted advices on r/wallstreetbets.
    - ahartmetz 7mo ago
      Would be interesting to have data on that. If it was true, you could win by always doing the opposite!
      - DeathArrow 7mo ago
        Just because one action is demonstrably harmful does not mean its negation is automatically beneficial. Or, formally, my claim is A implies B. The only logical contrapositive is non B implies non A. (not losing money means not following advices on r/wallstreetbets) But you say: non A implies non B, which is the fallacy of denying the antecedent.
        diydsp 7mo ago
        It doesnt have to be universally true to be true in a mathematical system like options/puts/calls.
gunsle 7mo ago
That would be because nearly all of those posts are entirely made up and somehow I guess people can’t tell that?
9rx 7mo ago
Stands to reason. Ask a computer for advice and it is going to give you a computer-centric answer: Restart and try again.
ModernMech 7mo ago
> the advice it's always to end the relationship. To be fair, if your interpersonal skills and relationship dynamic are such that you find yourself seriously asking the Internet (Reddit of all places) for relationship advice... yeah, just end it is probably the null hypothesis.

abpavel 7mo ago

You deserve better

yabutlivnWoods 7mo ago
A very sycophantic AI style answer. Code bot equivalent being all "you are absolutely right! Here is the unequivocal fix for now and all time!"
- finghin 7mo ago
  No one would ever have made that comment before GPT. I have a feeling you could be the one that’s poisoned!
deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]

PhoenixFlame101 7mo ago

The power of an echo chamber; makes extremism seem logical.

MaxBarraclough 7mo ago
I think it's more than just an echo chamber, it's the community wanting drama more than it wants to help people.

roncesvalles 7mo ago

I mean... it's a solution guaranteed to work in a trivial sense. It's not meant to be a serious suggestion but more of a thought experiment, like "hold this as the bar, can you find a solution better than this?" It's like what GiveDirectly says: all charitable interventions should be benchmarked against simply giving the beneficiaries a wad of cash.

fortmeier 7mo ago

I think it is some kind of survivership bias. Who is going to give advise on reddit? Maybe people shying away from difficult social interactions?

somenameforme 7mo ago
Paired with the echo chamber effect voting systems create. Anything that affirms the biases of a majority of upvoters gets elevated, anything that contradicts it gets hidden, and so you not infrequently end up with ubiquitous nonsense that then further reinforces the echo chamber as they become self assured. Then real life intervenes, completely goes against the online zeitgeist, and they're all confused.
- DeathArrow 7mo ago
  If you want to get poor fast, you can follow the most up voted advices on r/wallstreetbets.
  - ahartmetz 7mo ago
    Would be interesting to have data on that. If it was true, you could win by always doing the opposite!
    - DeathArrow 7mo ago
      Just because one action is demonstrably harmful does not mean its negation is automatically beneficial. Or, formally, my claim is A implies B. The only logical contrapositive is non B implies non A. (not losing money means not following advices on r/wallstreetbets) But you say: non A implies non B, which is the fallacy of denying the antecedent.
      - diydsp 7mo ago
        It doesnt have to be universally true to be true in a mathematical system like options/puts/calls.

gunsle 7mo ago

That would be because nearly all of those posts are entirely made up and somehow I guess people can’t tell that?

9rx 7mo ago

Stands to reason. Ask a computer for advice and it is going to give you a computer-centric answer: Restart and try again.

ModernMech 7mo ago

> the advice it's always to end the relationship. To be fair, if your interpersonal skills and relationship dynamic are such that you find yourself seriously asking the Internet (Reddit of all places) for relationship advice... yeah, just end it is probably the null hypothesis.