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

361–370 of 427 posts

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

#361

Post by haihaibye »

dheera wrote: post #315
bayesianbot wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a lot of dating sites at least in Scandinavia/central europe, where men pay per message (or usually buy message packs, it ends up being around 1€ a message IIRC). The (mostly) men answering these messages, pretending to be women, get paid around 0.15€ per reply. And obviously writing messages where they try to prolong the conversation and turn down real life meetings or changing to other (free) messaging sy…

Why does the system charge men and pay women to message, instead of just charging everyone to message? I would have thought that of all places Scandinavia would not price-discriminate users based on their gender ...

Asymmetry in gamete size

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

#362

Post by erezsh »

JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #106
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…

https://imgur.com/t/funny/fjqdCZz I like the whole quote. There’s one more gem in the middle. It shows they were good once. That they know. Any chance it can return?

No. I don't think it's in their hands anymore.

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

#363

Post by dheera »

dkarras wrote: post #337
dheera wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does the system charge men and pay women to message, instead of just charging everyone to message? I would have thought that of all places Scandinavia would not price-discriminate users based on their gender ...

Because if you made women pay, the pool of women would shrink considerably and there would not be enough women for men to message to. Ideologies of gender equality aside, simple observation shows that dating is a women's market. Not even just with humans as biologically, women have a lot more to risk (risk of pregnancy, risks associated with being physically weaker etc.) so they choose while men present themselves an…

... until the men who woefully find out that there aren't enough women get off the platform and find a ton of available women?

Or until the women find out that all the men are online and figure out that maybe they need to get an account too?

I mean, the numbers are still close to 1:1 so ultimately it should work out if you treat men and women equally.

If you make men pay you are only propagating stereotypes that men should always pay (and indirectly as a result) that men should get more pay, and that men should be leaders and women should be followers. Treat both equally and start we start eliminating these stereotypes. Women can and should be leaders as well in modern society, including in initiating relationships.

I mean, in cave people times, yes, men had roles and women had roles, but this is 2021, and we should be a whole lot more civilized than assuming roles based on gender, no?

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

#364

Post by extraAccount »

AngryData wrote: post #341
the_lonely_road wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 whe…

When using reddit, you need to stay away from the default subs. They are a timesink and repetitive, and because of the volume of users, the comments all start looking the same. People who were introduced through the mobile app usually make a lot of use of them.

You need to stick to the topic oriented subreddits. r/homelab for example.

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

#365

Post by tester34 »

0xffff2 wrote: post #147
tester34 wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

society should, just like roads.

At least in the US, "society" doesn't build and maintain roads. Thousands of individual city, county and state governments do.

ain't they just society representatives?

anyway meant the same

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

#366

Post by fxtentacle »

haihaibye wrote: post #361
dheera wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does the system charge men and pay women to message, instead of just charging everyone to message? I would have thought that of all places Scandinavia would not price-discriminate users based on their gender ...

Asymmetry in gamete size

Today I learned a clever new word. Thank you :)

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

#367

Post by fho »

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…

Kind of related: one of the dating platforms in Germany advertises with "every 10 minutes a single falls in love on XYZ" ... 1 year / 10 minutes = 52560 ... that's a pretty bad success rate for a platform that supposedly has millions of users.

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

#368

Post by selfhoster11 »

edgyquant wrote: post #231
the_lonely_road wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There’s real people for sure, but most of them are children and teenagers who are easily susceptible to corporate propaganda. I often wonder when a competitor will arise so that I can leave Reddit, and it’s rolling release of bad UX, for something better. At this point I would pay a monthly fee for a decent Reddit.

Those children and teenagers are often more knowledgeable on the topic I'm searching for (especially with regards to gaming equipment), so I'm happy to take their opinion like anyone else's.

That said, a paid reddit would be a ghost town. It's against the spirit of the site.

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

#369

Post by simonh »

nowherebeen wrote: post #359
simonh wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Shareholder…

Given the hundreds of thousands of listed companies you can find examples of anything, but there's nothing inevitable about companies being run purely for short term concerns. Not every company is run that way, shareholder theory or no. Plenty of listed companies are capable of extremely long term investments.

The drive for the short term is one possible strategy and outcome, that's all. In a competitive environment sometimes it even makes sense. Even when it doesn't the existence of failure modes in a system doesn't invalidate the entire system. All systems have failure modes, they need to be evaluated as a whole.

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

#370

Post by langitbiru »

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…

I'm building a dating app, SwanLove (https://swan.love). It's still in MVP mode and centralized mode.

I'm thinking of pivoting into this kind of business model: B2B. So I make my dating app something like GitLab or WordPress. You can install it and host it yourself. You pay me every month if your users exceeds 100.

Say, you are a priest or a gym owner. You have a community. You want your people in the community (church, gym) to have a chance to find a romantic partner inside the community. Anyone who wants to register in your dating app needs to be a member of your community first (church, gym). This way, I don't even hold the data (avoiding becoming a honeypot for hackers). I just want the money (in an ethical way).

What do you think? Is this ethical business model for a dating startup?

For the centralized dating app, maybe the subscription package can help them foster their relationship. I don't know. I'm still thinking about it.

Or you can create a bounty in the dating app for someone who can introduce a wonderful person to you. Then if you get married, the dating startup gets a cut from the bounty. The problem is how you verify whether people get married or not. Can we do something like bootcamps offering ISA that can access their students' tax records?

Post reply on HN