Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We were promised Strong AI, but instead we got metadata analysis

calpaterson.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 427 posts

Re: We were promised Strong AI, but instead we got metadata analysis

#341

Post by AngryData »

the_lonely_road wrote: post #189
PoignardAzur wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I literally append "site:reddit.com" Stop saying that! The more people repeat that on HN, the more we risk advertisers realizing it and doing reddit-targeted SEO and reddit will be useless too! (I'm only half joking) Also, it's funny, I was just reading the thread about malaria eradication and DDT-resistant mosquitoes; the problem of SEO is eerily similar (any countermeasure is eventually defeated by evolution).

You are 10 years too late for that concern. I often wonder if there are any real people commenting, submitting, or upvoting left on Reddit.

I wouldn't go that far. There are tons of real people on it. A big problem problem though is the user base is so large and concentrated that it disguises the massive amounts of bots and "hidden" advertisement posts that get mixed in. And that low quality content drags the entire community down as "legitimate" posts are forced to compete for views/karma which was not their end-goal in the first place.

Reddit works when it isn't a competition, but advertising has made it a competition with a profit motive.

Re: We were promised Strong AI, but instead we got metadata analysis

#342

Post by cratermoon »

imtringued wrote: post #302
behnamoh wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO the ideal business model from users' perspective could be pay-as-you-go, where you pay for each individual you want to send message to (e.g. $1.99).

If you wanted to go down this route you would pay per date, otherwise what are you paying for? Sure, the algorithm may jinx it by sending you on more bad dates than you wanted, but it would get you further than just a message.

> pay per date

Hmm, I'm pretty sure that's been a business model for a very long time.

Re: We were promised Strong AI, but instead we got metadata analysis

#343

Post by agentofoblivion »

I find this article exaggerates the evidence by playing loose with the term “metadata”. For example, they claim PageRank is just another example of metadata. But that’s a graph processing algorithm and it’s just that the graph was constructed using “metadata”. Now we would probably use Graph Neural Networks which would use that same graph structure but also include the page content as node features, which PageRank wasn’t capable of.

Would using IP address as a feature in an online fraud risk ML model be another case of “metadata”? Speaking of, I don’t know what American Express does specifically, but I have enough experience in the fraud + ML space to confidently say that many/most of the big players are using ML in several places throughout their fraud systems, even if allow/block lists are also used.

I guess that’s my larger point: these aren’t exclusive things. Metadata is of course incredibly valuable. So is Machine Learning. They also work really well together. And sometimes simple things work best.

Re: We were promised Strong AI, but instead we got metadata analysis

#344

Post by [deleted] »

derefr wrote: post #177
dheera wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the article > 12-moth plan > 6-month plan Why would a dating site have a 12-month plan, and why would a user of a dating site want a 12-month plan? Not only would you hopefully want to be off the site within 12 months, as soon as you found someone compatible, you would hopefully delete the app, but you've unnecessarily paid for months you will (hopefully) never use. I don't understand why anything but month-to-m…

Month-to-month is just as bad. The ideal business model for a dating site, from the users' perspective, is a one-time advance payment. This puts the business into the situation where they have an incentive to get you satisfied as quickly as possible, so that they can spend as little time/money on you as possible, so that your value to them doesn't go negative from allowing you to spend too much of their time/money. T…

[deleted]

Re: We were promised Strong AI, but instead we got metadata analysis

#345

Post by Abishek_Muthian »

dheera wrote: post #134
sseagull wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wasn't this also the story of a dating site (whose name escapes me. OKCupid? PoF?)? Original owner wrote an article about how paying for a dating site is a bad idea. Money is offered, article disappears. Searching is failing me at the moment edit: Was OKCupid: https://www.themarysue.com/okcupid-pulls-why-you-should-neve...

From the article > 12-moth plan > 6-month plan Why would a dating site have a 12-month plan, and why would a user of a dating site want a 12-month plan? Not only would you hopefully want to be off the site within 12 months, as soon as you found someone compatible, you would hopefully delete the app, but you've unnecessarily paid for months you will (hopefully) never use. I don't understand why anything but month-to-m…

If a dating platform fulfills its promise i.e. offers users only the best date with whom the user could potentially have a long-term relationship then the user gains but the platform would soon run out of the users(Chicken-and-Egg is most prevalent in dating platforms).

So these platforms are only optimized for - Choice overload, Doom scrolling based on physical attractiveness.

Re: We were promised Strong AI, but instead we got metadata analysis

#346

Post by edgyquant »

sudosysgen wrote: post #326
edgyquant wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes it is, namely this is the GP > Money is the one unpatchable zero-day for every platform and service on earth. To which the response was that Karl Marx had submitted a fix

Yes, and? I think you missed a few steps. Someone then answered that bribery is still possible, and I answered again.

I didn’t respond to the bribery comment I responded to the patch comment saying to let me know when scarcity is solved. I think it may be you who has added a step there, friend.

Re: We were promised Strong AI, but instead we got metadata analysis

#347

Post by edgyquant »

sudosysgen wrote: post #327
edgyquant wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Non-transferable tokens aren’t going to be a successful replacement for money

In a capitalist economy certainly not.

In any economy that isn’t post-scarcity dude, money wasn’t invented by capitalists nor was the idea of an exchange.

Re: We were promised Strong AI, but instead we got metadata analysis

#348

Post by goatlover »

heterodoxxed wrote: post #329
nautilus12 wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is that these atrocities were committed more specifically as a result of communism, whereas other attrocities are less closely attributable to capitalism since it has been the majority default throughout history. EDIT:. I'm not saying what's normal is ok, I'm saying what's common is more likely to falsely correlate with anything. Whereas as the common factor for communism across the board has been a high st…

That's ahistorical considering almost all deaths attributed to communism were a result of industrialization, a process which was just as deadly under capitalism. The only difference as a result of ideology was the timeframe. The USSR was forced to rapidly industrialize due to global pressure from foreign militaries and famines in China were exceedingly common long before communism. History is not as simple as you're…

The famine under Mao was because of his failed policies, though.

Re: We were promised Strong AI, but instead we got metadata analysis

#349

Post by pjmorris »

simonh wrote: post #314
pjmorris wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A shareholder is more like the butcher or baker's brother than the butcher or baker. The incentives are different.

How so?

The butcher and baker a) have to understand what it takes to produce quality meats and breads and b) stand face to face with the customer, so they have both professional and reputational stakes in the game. Their stakeholder brothers and sisters may or may not have the same knowledge or reputational risk, and so their self-interested measures may correlate more with what puts money in their pockets in the short term than what makes the business viable over the long term.

Re: We were promised Strong AI, but instead we got metadata analysis

#350

Post by throwaway3699 »

heavyset_go wrote: post #335
throwaway3699 wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Putting emotions aside for a second, slavery is very inefficient in a free market. It is not a coincidence free countries are all capitalist (and vice versa).

So are famines, but that didn't stop the market from starving millions of people, either.

When did markets cause famine? We are living in an age of wasted food because we have so much cheap crap (as well as high-quality) available. People are too fat because there's no barrier to over-consumption.

Whereas a socialist system causes famines due to central planning leads to poor decision making.

Post reply on HN