4 ms·

As someone pointed out in another thread, we're ruled by algorithms now and have been for quite some time. Tinder itself is based on a human processed algorithm

As someone pointed out in another thread, we're ruled by algorithms now and have been for quite some time. Tinder itself is based on a human processed algorithm: IF ((I think that he/she is hot) && (he/she thinks I am hot)) THEN date(); The good thing about computer algorithms is that we can open them up and see how they work. Like, y'know, hackers. This program is doing the same basic task as a person would, "Look at a face and judge hotness", except it can be tuned and tweaked and quantifiably understood. I don't understand what's dystopian about that. I do understand why people don't like it. Everyone feels that an algorithm could screw them over in a situation where a person wouldn't. It's the driverless car argument. And we all know the response, that humans aren't perfect either and we have better metrics and tools for understanding and fixing machine mistakes than we do human mistakes. The same is true for algorithms that control Tinder, credit applications, health insurance rates, et al. They aren't always right and it does suck when you can't make an appeal to human compassion. But humans can be just as wrong and just as obstinate, if not moreso. At least with an algorithm you know where you stand. I, for one, welcome our algorithmic overlords. As a hacker I've always been able to figure out how technical systems work. Other humans? Not so much. If anything, this new world will play to my strengths and to the strengths of those like me.

karma_fountain 12y ago
Gahh, close your if statement man.
- StavrosK 12y ago
  END IF;
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- Coding_Cat 12y ago
  Don't worry, he was using C and he defined THEN as an empty macro statement.
Padding 12y ago
> I, for one, welcome our algorithmic overlords. Just imagine a world where you'd never have to hear "because I said so" and "becasue fuck you, that's why" ever again. A world where for everything that goes wrong, there'll always be a clear way to fix it and some clearly identifiable someone liable for the mistake. A world where being handsome is no more an advantage than having blue as your favorite color. Etc. Maybe it's not perfect, but it would most certainly take away power from people that don't deserve it. I can see why the "powers that be" would try to convince us that this is "dystopian".
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- deong 12y ago
  Until computers are as generally intelligent as humans, the algorithms aren't going to be the overlords -- they're going to have overlords. The algorithm isn't processing your loan application because it runs a bank; it's just doing what the bank's owners paid for it to do, and if they want to say, "because fuck you, that's why", they can happily continue to do so. If anything, better AI may make them better able to leverage their existing advantages over the rest of us. And when the AI does reach human level (a long time from now), we may be no more capable of understanding its motivations than we are of understanding those of other humans today.
  - Padding 12y ago
    > if they want to say, "because fuck you, that's why", they can happily continue to do so Not if there are incentives for the algorithms to be subject to public scrutiny. > And when the AI does reach human level (a long time from now), we may be no more capable of understanding its motivations (1) You're implying they/it'll have "motivations" in the first place. My whole argument was about a lack of motives. (2) There's a difference between understanding how a conclusion was reached and why it was reached. Example: You may not understand how your compiler decided that line X in your program is dead code, but you may still be capable of comprehending that it in fact is dead code.
yourbackstop 12y ago
Maybe you want to look into the 'Psycho Pass' series for some illustration of the risks.
- L-four 12y ago
  Don't use the brains of criminals in your computer. Problem solved.
  - TheLoneWolfling 12y ago
    That's nowhere near the only problem with Psycho-pass's society.
- oldmanjay 12y ago
  Then we can read some Heinlein to learn why libertarianism is the obvious correct answer to every problem, as well as the valuable insight that the only thing on the minds of attractive young women is sex with old men. I learn so much from fiction.

karma_fountain 12y ago

Gahh, close your if statement man.

StavrosK 12y ago
END IF;
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
Coding_Cat 12y ago
Don't worry, he was using C and he defined THEN as an empty macro statement.

Padding 12y ago

> I, for one, welcome our algorithmic overlords. Just imagine a world where you'd never have to hear "because I said so" and "becasue fuck you, that's why" ever again. A world where for everything that goes wrong, there'll always be a clear way to fix it and some clearly identifiable someone liable for the mistake. A world where being handsome is no more an advantage than having blue as your favorite color. Etc. Maybe it's not perfect, but it would most certainly take away power from people that don't deserve it. I can see why the "powers that be" would try to convince us that this is "dystopian".

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
deong 12y ago
Until computers are as generally intelligent as humans, the algorithms aren't going to be the overlords -- they're going to have overlords. The algorithm isn't processing your loan application because it runs a bank; it's just doing what the bank's owners paid for it to do, and if they want to say, "because fuck you, that's why", they can happily continue to do so. If anything, better AI may make them better able to leverage their existing advantages over the rest of us. And when the AI does reach human level (a long time from now), we may be no more capable of understanding its motivations than we are of understanding those of other humans today.
- Padding 12y ago
  > if they want to say, "because fuck you, that's why", they can happily continue to do so Not if there are incentives for the algorithms to be subject to public scrutiny. > And when the AI does reach human level (a long time from now), we may be no more capable of understanding its motivations (1) You're implying they/it'll have "motivations" in the first place. My whole argument was about a lack of motives. (2) There's a difference between understanding how a conclusion was reached and why it was reached. Example: You may not understand how your compiler decided that line X in your program is dead code, but you may still be capable of comprehending that it in fact is dead code.

yourbackstop 12y ago

Maybe you want to look into the 'Psycho Pass' series for some illustration of the risks.

L-four 12y ago
Don't use the brains of criminals in your computer. Problem solved.
- TheLoneWolfling 12y ago
  That's nowhere near the only problem with Psycho-pass's society.
oldmanjay 12y ago
Then we can read some Heinlein to learn why libertarianism is the obvious correct answer to every problem, as well as the valuable insight that the only thing on the minds of attractive young women is sex with old men. I learn so much from fiction.