281–290 of 300 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
they’re just optimizing for the wrong metric. If the metric was “user satisfaction” they could target it day and night and nobody would be complaining.
The reason goodharts law exists is because its hard to measure things like user satisfaction, so we're left with poor proxies like user engagement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
they’re just optimizing for the wrong metric. If the metric was “user satisfaction” they could target it day and night and nobody would be complaining.
The issue is that something like this difficult to operationalize. User Engagement conflated with user satisfaction, with poor results. Maybe you could force your users to fill out Likert scales all the time, I bet they'd love that.
Are you satisfied?
[yes] [no] Earlier quoted context omitted.
(I'll be honest that I didn't originally didn't read that the topic under discussion was modding of games. Passing off a game as your own is obviously not right, but that isn't the only topic under discussion here.) Of course modding is not the same as Shakespeare. My point was that stories like those of Shakespeare would not have been possible with our modern notions of copyright. I do agree that many (but not all)…
Thanks for your comment. I'm certainly not arguing for a binary definition of creativity. I would play The Stanley Parable and vouch for it's existence as a stand-alone work of art. But should The Stanley Parable be able to profit and set up a free enterprise on the tireless work of Valve engineers? Well, I wasn't really arguing that either. All I was saying is that, as an artist, if you consider yourself "fucked" be…
I see we're very far apart and probably won't find some common ground, but the way I feel about the situation is that as automation removes the rest of manual labor jobs, people will need to specialize. And modding old ideas is one of the few ways people could specialize and make a living for themselves. You're free to disagree here, but the future is coming, and one day we'll both be gone. The best ideas, however, will be around. And it's hard to imagine that the best idea is not to let anyone else use anything you've thought of for your entire life plus ninety years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This does seem like a powerful idea. The problem of networking friends, family, and co-workers has more or less been solved, but the problem of putting together complete strangers with shared interests and coincident physical locality really hasn't even been attacked except in very constrained use cases (i.e., dating services). It's possible that the next big wave of social networks will be less "Facebook" and more "…
I'm not sure how you can say this when Meetup has been around for years. It does exactly what you describe.
We might be at a local maximum, but we're nowhere near the peak. What we're seeing is an end of the race to the bottom. What's happened is that most of the major social networks only hire and promote people who make decisions primarily based on analytics. As a result these sites no longer have any real communities or organic content, and have been completely hollowed out by math-friendly refrigerator magnet junkfood.…
Companies like Facebook endlessly proliferate they are all about “connecting people”, but what’s the point of even having people run it when “connecting people” really means just using algorithms to spoon feed bullshit to people so the company can count it as “engagement time” and report it back to their board on the quarterly conference call.
Digital social interaction isn’t a free public good centered around people as long as it’s privitized for the purpose of profit, and it’s also something the government can’t be trusted with providing either.
Honestly, I don’t think we have figured out a good solution or channel for social communication yet. I’m not trying to be a tinfoil hat wearer alluding to blockchain or p2p as the answer because who’s to say it is the answer. We can only use our current frustrations to push us to keep innovating further towards a solution that’s more natural and compelling to use.
Sometimes I long back to the days of AIM, because while it seems pretty feature poor compared to services today, it did the job that I needed it to do, which was provide an easy avenue to stay in touch with current friends and easily start conversations with new people. Simplicity is taken for granted in the world today, and even though we are in the “Web 3” age we shouldn’t just throw experiences and social channels from earlier days of the internet out the window for the sake of illusionary progress. Shit, I even meet people who are still passionate about Usenet, despite it being older than me. That’s damn powerful to see people care about the communities they were/are a part of and remember stories of building friendships and social interactions on the internet some decades later. These are things that seem lost today in a landscape focused on striving towards hitting target numbers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
(I'll be honest that I didn't originally didn't read that the topic under discussion was modding of games. Passing off a game as your own is obviously not right, but that isn't the only topic under discussion here.) Of course modding is not the same as Shakespeare. My point was that stories like those of Shakespeare would not have been possible with our modern notions of copyright. I do agree that many (but not all)…
Thanks for your comment. I'm certainly not arguing for a binary definition of creativity. I would play The Stanley Parable and vouch for it's existence as a stand-alone work of art. But should The Stanley Parable be able to profit and set up a free enterprise on the tireless work of Valve engineers? Well, I wasn't really arguing that either. All I was saying is that, as an artist, if you consider yourself "fucked" be…
Copyright law is not meant to protect companies. From a historical perspective, it has always meant to temporarily protect authors' rights to their inventions so that society can get more works from those authors. Citing the US constitution (other countries have different justifications, but I assume that you are in the US):
> [The Congress shall have Power] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
This matches the purpose of the copyright system defined in 1710 under Statute of Anne (which inspired this clause in the constitution). The copyright system that pre-dated the Statute of Anne was a system of censorship by the publishing houses (that were members of the Printers' Guild), and the public rebelled against their censorship and Queen Anne strove to come up with a system that was far more fair and was meant to inspire authors to produce more work (rather than restrict what they can write so publishers can make more money).
Having a copyright system that protects publishers (which is what we currently have) and lasts for 70 years after the death of the author does not "promote the Progress" of anything (in fact it actively stifles it). I would argue current copyright law is unconstitutional in the US, but I don't have enough money to fight that fight (and the only people that do benefit from copyright law's overreach).
Unfortunately, in our modern age, the true purpose of copyright has been forgotten. People (like yourself) think that the purpose is to protect companies profits -- this could not be further from the truth. Such companies benefit from this misinformation, and regularly lobby the US Congress to add laws which further expand copyright laws (both in breadth as well as length) that result in even more profits for large companies without any more works made as a result. The true hypocrisy is that many of these companies would not have been able to make their works at all without the public domain, and without liberal copyright laws. The first cartoon Mickey Mouse appeared in (Steamboat Willie) made use of things from previous movies (Steamboat Bill Jr -- which was released 50 years earlier).
> out of respect for the law that protects from 100% bad actors which do not wish to creatively enhance, but to sell or distribute identical copies of original creative work.
Even if we ignore that these copyright laws are written by these same corporations (that themselves used public domain, and even infringed on copyrighted works from smaller publishers, to make their products), as I said above this is missing the purpose of copyright law.
We might be at a local maximum, but we're nowhere near the peak. What we're seeing is an end of the race to the bottom. What's happened is that most of the major social networks only hire and promote people who make decisions primarily based on analytics. As a result these sites no longer have any real communities or organic content, and have been completely hollowed out by math-friendly refrigerator magnet junkfood.…
You didn’t learn from the last time?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's also a way of doing leaderless agreement about distributed platforms in low-trust environments. I'm no blockchain fanatic, bit ISTM that a decentralised discussion board could require the spending of tokens to make posts. The market should hopefully make the tokens of desirable communities more expensive, which discourages cheap, low-effort posts. AFAICT, before blockchain you could have decentralisation or paid…
I cannot envision myself joining a community like the one you described unless the utility of the community was very high. I do not think that paid posting will improve the average utility of a community, but I am open to examples showing I am incorrect. The best publications pay people to write for them, not the other way around.
If the forumtokens fluctuate wildly in value it would probably kill the forum too, particularly if the only way to get them was through the market. I can't think of any way to algorithmically deal out tokens to posters that doesn't reward at least one of: multiple accounts, spamming, or writing outrage bait.
I really wish social media would "peak" to towards meeting people in real life semi-spontaneously. No profiles, no media uploads, no digital showboating. The best relationships I have with other people fall in this category. Real life,common interests,no digital uploads. Just add attributes of your geolocation and hobbies [biking, yoga,tensorflow,etc] or let it crawl your digital profile(s) to autobuild your attribut…
Lunch Club is almost exactly what you described. lunchclub.ai So far I've found it to be a lot of fun
I really wish social media would "peak" to towards meeting people in real life semi-spontaneously. No profiles, no media uploads, no digital showboating. The best relationships I have with other people fall in this category. Real life,common interests,no digital uploads. Just add attributes of your geolocation and hobbies [biking, yoga,tensorflow,etc] or let it crawl your digital profile(s) to autobuild your attribut…