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

AI: Markets for Lemons, and the Great Logging Off

fortressofdoors.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 292 posts

Re: AI: Markets for Lemons, and the Great Logging Off

#151

Post by swader999 »

angarg12 wrote: post #25

Regarding the Third point, I can already see part of this movement. I've become disenchanted with the quality of the discourse. Specifically as I've entered a more senior stage of my career, I'm looking to mingle with like-minded folks in similar situations. Thing is, these folks don't usually lurk online, and even if they do, their voices get overwhelmed by the flood of (mostly low quality) content. I'd be happy to…

These closed groups seem to be too inbred, too like minded. For some things that's probably ok and good, but for creative solutions, I find I need to hear it all and see it from many angles.

Re: AI: Markets for Lemons, and the Great Logging Off

#152

Post by LeftCorner »

Geee wrote: post #143

The purpose of communication is to distribute and filter information. We don't actually need to communicate. We do it to distribute and filter information. It is currently a very inefficient process. If AI does that for us in the future, all is good and we end up being more efficient. No more time wasted on reading & writing comments on the Internet. AI should be able to pick the most relevant information for you and…

>The purpose of communication is to distribute and filter information.

And connect with other people, feel catharsis, to feel less alone, loved, engaged, interested, and the other things that make us human. AI will not give us that and in fact undermine that. Perhaps then AI will push back to the "real world" for these interactions, as the article opines.

Re: AI: Markets for Lemons, and the Great Logging Off

#153

Post by flir »

michaelt wrote: post #89
angarg12 wrote: post #25

Regarding the Third point, I can already see part of this movement. I've become disenchanted with the quality of the discourse. Specifically as I've entered a more senior stage of my career, I'm looking to mingle with like-minded folks in similar situations. Thing is, these folks don't usually lurk online, and even if they do, their voices get overwhelmed by the flood of (mostly low quality) content. I'd be happy to…

I've long had a theory that services that demand an upfront payment for an ongoing service will find the payment works against their growth goals and remove it. For example, businesses that involve $$$ reusable delivery containers don't work well because they want to give first-time customers a discount not a surcharge . Whatsapp was ridiculously cheap - something like $1/year - but they still decided that worked aga…

Sometimes, growth isn't the point (I too point to metafilter). Cash up front is a barrier.

Re: AI: Markets for Lemons, and the Great Logging Off

#154

Post by swader999 »

Renaud wrote: post #113
wyldfire wrote: post #2

> Second, I think people will start to put a premium on accounts being "verified" as genuinely human. IMO this is long overdue. And I think people should/will eventually even pay for this feature. > Powerful nation states will be more than eager to assist them in this regard. I agree - world governments could consider even subsidizing this in some way in order to foster fewer anonymous botnets sowing discord. The web…

>loss of anonymity comes with significant drawbacks: criticizing government and powerful people becomes more difficult. How don't see how making our lives more dystopian can be a net benefit. How many of us expose different aspects of ourselves through different identities? Maybe most people are happy to show everyone all aspects of their lives, but I'm not, in part because who I am could get me or the people I meet…

Yep, a functioning society that benefits the most needs some form of anonymous dissent.

Re: AI: Markets for Lemons, and the Great Logging Off

#155

Post by Geee »

mola wrote: post #147
Geee wrote: post #143

The purpose of communication is to distribute and filter information. We don't actually need to communicate. We do it to distribute and filter information. It is currently a very inefficient process. If AI does that for us in the future, all is good and we end up being more efficient. No more time wasted on reading & writing comments on the Internet. AI should be able to pick the most relevant information for you and…

If it's a personal ai. But I wouldn't trust a centralized for profit "AI". Journalists atleast (had) ethics and norms that can make me somewhat trust them. A for profit AI filtering information for me? It's asking for trouble.

Yeah, AI must be personal and aligned to each individual rather than centralized and aligned to collective / group of high priests / profit-maximizers.

Re: AI: Markets for Lemons, and the Great Logging Off

#156

Post by anselm »

Authors making this argument (which we see often now) really need to sketch out why cryptographic solutions will fail.

The entire thesis rests on this erroneous sentence in the second point: “This can be done in two ways – just move to invite-only silos where you already know everybody, or big platforms where the owners do the vetting for you.”

There are more options. We employ them when we are forced to; when it becomes cheaper than not.

We can sign posts or sign that somebody is real or to sign that somebody has earned rep, or that somebody has burned their rep… and subjectively score every piece of content that crosses our phone against our social trust graph.

We can rhizomatically scale social networks, can deputize our people in our extended social network to mark content as appropriate for kids or not, or otherwise filter. There’s no specific reason why we cannot grow a kind of social nervous system that has a kind of myelin sheath against noise and spam. It doesn’t have to be specifically only people we’ve shaken hands with or our like 3 closest buddies.

Re: AI: Markets for Lemons, and the Great Logging Off

#158

Post by swader999 »

seydor wrote: post #98
notadev wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by doom and gloom being the real problem? Are you saying it’s more of a perception issue that can be changed by the user?

No i mean things like, this article: That AI is so bad that people will want to run away. As far as i m concerned AI is a positive and desirable change in the world

It still seems derivative, not creative. It is damn good at it and will only get better but still derivative from my limited experience playing with it.

Re: AI: Markets for Lemons, and the Great Logging Off

#159

Post by awestroke »

anselm wrote: post #156

Authors making this argument (which we see often now) really need to sketch out why cryptographic solutions will fail. The entire thesis rests on this erroneous sentence in the second point: “This can be done in two ways – just move to invite-only silos where you already know everybody, or big platforms where the owners do the vetting for you.” There are more options. We employ them when we are forced to; when it bec…

So, people start signing their AI-generated messages. What have we gained?

Re: AI: Markets for Lemons, and the Great Logging Off

#160

Post by awestroke »

LeftCorner wrote: post #152
Geee wrote: post #143

The purpose of communication is to distribute and filter information. We don't actually need to communicate. We do it to distribute and filter information. It is currently a very inefficient process. If AI does that for us in the future, all is good and we end up being more efficient. No more time wasted on reading & writing comments on the Internet. AI should be able to pick the most relevant information for you and…

>The purpose of communication is to distribute and filter information. And connect with other people, feel catharsis, to feel less alone, loved, engaged, interested, and the other things that make us human. AI will not give us that and in fact undermine that. Perhaps then AI will push back to the "real world" for these interactions, as the article opines.

> AI will not give us that [...]"

Is that true?

Post reply on HN