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

351–360 of 427 posts

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

#351

Post by asiachick »

sseagull wrote: post #109
soarfourmore wrote: post #49

The following quotes are fairly interesting and ironic: > Larry Page and Sergey Brin were originally pretty negative about search engines that sold ads. Appendix A in their original paper says: >> "we expect that advertising-funded search engines will be inherently biased towards the advertisers and away from the needs of the consumers" > and that >> "we believe the issue of advertising causes enough mixed incentives…

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...

I find there are mixed incentives. An evil paid dating site might try scammy things to get you to sign up. Some site I tried did this. Free to sign up and immediately got "too good to be true" matches that you could only access if you paid. But conversely, free sites I get lots clear predators either only looking for sex or scammers trying to get money. OTOH my experience on an actual paid site ($150-$400 a year) no free sign up, is that nearly everyone is seriously looking for long term relationship.

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

#352

Post by heterodoxxed »

goatlover wrote: post #348
heterodoxxed wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Aside from the fact that mismanagement is not unique to communism, there have been many famines under capitalism.

I'm not a maoist, so I'm not about to defend his ineptitude, but it seems intellectually lazy to point to these problems as unique. In the 18th, 19th and 20th century, depending on what level of development a country was in, these problems were widespread across all ideologies.

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

#353

Post by FridgeSeal »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #303
dheera wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's some segment of the dating-site world that has more of a Netflix model in mind Although I'm sure those users exist, I'm sure they aren't the majority of the world, who would rather just be happily married and get on with life? And even if not, these users who have different expectations should not be matching with the former.

> And even if not, these users who have different expectations should not be matching with the former. Actually, given the extreme social stigma worldwide (even in the most progressive western countries) against casual hookups and low-commitment dating, people looking for "more of a Netflix model" will still gravitate towards the same sites ostensibly servicing those "who would rather just be happily married and get…

Bumble has a feature where you can indicate what you’re looking for, options are “something casual”, “don’t know yet”, “relationship” and “marriage”. You can also filter for this.

From experience: very few people have “something casual” set, but I know from female friends that there’s plenty of guys with “don’t know” or “relationship” set despite looking for something casual.

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

#354

Post by goatlover »

heterodoxxed wrote: post #352
goatlover wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Aside from the fact that mismanagement is not unique to communism, there have been many famines under capitalism. I'm not a maoist, so I'm not about to defend his ineptitude, but it seems intellectually lazy to point to these problems as unique. In the 18th, 19th and 20th century, depending on what level of development a country was in, these problems were widespread across all ideologies.

Not unique, but some truly terrible leaders were inspired by Marxism in the 20th century. I'm not sure what the selling point is supposed to be if the rebuttal is that bad things happen under capitalism too.

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

#355

Post by heterodoxxed »

goatlover wrote: post #354
heterodoxxed wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aside from the fact that mismanagement is not unique to communism, there have been many famines under capitalism. I'm not a maoist, so I'm not about to defend his ineptitude, but it seems intellectually lazy to point to these problems as unique. In the 18th, 19th and 20th century, depending on what level of development a country was in, these problems were widespread across all ideologies.

Not unique, but some truly terrible leaders were inspired by Marxism in the 20th century. I'm not sure what the selling point is supposed to be if the rebuttal is that bad things happen under capitalism too.

I'm not selling revolutionary marxism here, but an informed view of history that doesn't fall into such ideological chasms.

Think about why Stalin is presented as a terrible leader and Churchill as a great one.

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

#356

Post by sudosysgen »

edgyquant wrote: post #347
sudosysgen wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, modes of rationing and discovering preferential subjective values are necessary. That does not imply what is meant with money, which is infinitely durable, portable, fungible and uniform.

Already rationing systems which do not fit the definition of money are being employed. For example in the post-pandemic period the PBoC has issued consumption tokens with an expiration date.

You are simply confusing the idea of a scarce token with money. Money is in the former category but the former category is not money. The necessary function is to translate consumer preferences into numeric terms. For this fungibility and durability is not necessary.

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

#357

Post by simonh »

pjmorris wrote: post #349
simonh wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Shareholders don’t care about the reputation or quality of service of the company? That seems a stretch.

As I’ve commented elsewhere I don’t entirely agree with Friedman because I think some social spending can make commercial sense for a company, but I think what he’s saying is just a pretty direct refinement of the exact same points Smith made.

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

#358

Post by sudosysgen »

edgyquant wrote: post #346
sudosysgen wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Money is not the only device that can translate relative preferences.

Just because things are scarce does not mean that non-scarce tools such as software must be bent to monetary incentives that reduce their value.

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

#359

Post by nowherebeen »

simonh wrote: post #357
pjmorris wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Shareholders don’t care about the reputation or quality of service of the company? That seems a stretch. As I’ve commented elsewhere I don’t entirely agree with Friedman because I think some social spending can make commercial sense for a company, but I think what he’s saying is just a pretty direct refinement of the exact same points Smith made.

> Shareholders don’t care about the reputation or quality of service of the company? That seems a stretch.

Not a stretch at all. Proven time and time again that shareholders focus on short term gains over long term.

When hired CEOs pay is tied to equity (i.e. shareholder) they make decisions based on how it affects the share price during their tenure, not after. GM after Jack Welch left is a good example.

Shareholders can sell their shares anytime. They care about the horse winning current race more than the next because they can bet on another horse next time. So they only care about the horse as long as they are betting for it.

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

#360

Post by edgyquant »

sudosysgen wrote: post #358
edgyquant wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Money is not the only device that can translate relative preferences. Just because things are scarce does not mean that non-scarce tools such as software must be bent to monetary incentives that reduce their value.

Any device that is used to ration is money though, there are other means to ration (the three we learn in Econ are beauty, brute force and first come first serve) but any device is by definition money since money is just a rationing device.
Post reply on HN