Live data from Hacker News

Knitting bullshit

katedaviesdesigns.com

81–90 of 221 posts

Re: Knitting bullshit

#81
I like how the pictures got more and more sloporific through the essay.

It doesn't mention an important group being harmed: the creators who make high-quality, sincere podcasts about knitting. Their genuine content gets buried under a mountain of slop. In theory, recommendation algorithms ought to surface the best stuff, but that doesn't seem to align with incentives. Sad.

Re: Knitting bullshit

#82
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the start of Good Omens, there’s a scene where demons are sharing their recent misdeeds. A couple of them are sharing “classic” demon stuff like killing and possessing, but Crowley (the protagonist demon) shares more modern evil deeds, such as creating traffic jams. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Omens I’d link to a clip of it, but to your point some devil is making it frustratingly hard to find.

It's been years, but I seem to recall that Crowley specifically is very proud about making sure some motorway project got botched, because the continual drip of suffering from the accumulated jams and road rage makes him look really good in the spreadsheets even though he's not much for the classical showy stuff. Millions of little instances of suffering adding up year on year, instead of a handful of incidents of re…

Whoever decided adding silly audio effects to an operating system is surely one of these lesser devils. Just think of how many people have been aggravated by a colleague's laptop when it "wakes up" every day, or an inappropriate notification sound during a presentation or something. On any desktop PC I interact with I do my bit by disabling all sound effects before I continue.

Re: Knitting bullshit

#83
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For a long time I thought that the AdSense business model was ultimately doomed because I assumed that people hate ads as much as I do. It turns out I was just wrong about what most people are willing to put up with.

I remember visiting a friend over a decade ago, and for some reason I had to use their computer for a bit. I was immediately thrown aback by all the ads everywhere and installed an ad blocker before anything else. They were very grateful, but the part that surprised me was they were annoyed by the ads but never thought to look for some way around it. It never even crossed their minds it could be done or to search for…

Similarly, when my partner moved in I told her about the network-level adblocker and she kinda scoffed at it saying ads don't bother her. A few years later she started complaining that when she's out of the house she gets ads.

Re: Knitting bullshit

#84
post #11

Am I to believe that those 700K+ downloads are organic traffic? Who's listening to all this stuff?

HN sends tens of thousands of views to AI-farmed articles about why AI is good or why AI is bad. These articles get upvoted to the front page literally every day. They don't say anything interesting, but many of us just like having our existing beliefs recited back to us.

So to answer your question, I think we all do, it's just that different audiences have different sets of topics for which they let their guard down.

There is a huge market for content that makes you feel smart without requiring thinking and makes you busy without requiring work. I'm not not saying it's inherently bad. I'm listening to music on my daily commute and it's the same thing: just enjoyable filler so that you can do something other than getting angry at other drivers. The internet just weaponized the formula, and now AI is the equivalent of nuclear weapons I guess.

Re: Knitting bullshit

#86
post #11

Am I to believe that those 700K+ downloads are organic traffic? Who's listening to all this stuff?

No, but to misinform people you have two main strategies: limiting through tailored scarcity and dilute in extra-generic overabundance. Don’t get it wrong: both can be combined and even can sometime overlap. It doesn’t matter if no one is listening. Equally saturating all channels, metrics and indicator is enough to create hindrance so preventing relevant information to spread in meaningful time. Attention is all you…

Also, fracturing audiences to infinity.

Re: Knitting bullshit

#87
post #81

I like how the pictures got more and more sloporific through the essay. It doesn't mention an important group being harmed: the creators who make high-quality, sincere podcasts about knitting. Their genuine content gets buried under a mountain of slop. In theory, recommendation algorithms ought to surface the best stuff, but that doesn't seem to align with incentives. Sad.

Or even worse, it gets fed back into the AI slop machine

Re: Knitting bullshit

#89

It's scandalous that no-one has yet posted Gary Larson's Far Side cartoon "Bullknitters". https://www.instagram.com/p/C2OQtokvzCa/ (or google image search)

Personally I think it's scandalous that the now top comment is an off-topic reference to something tangential to the title, and nothing to do with the article, which isn't really about knitting at all, except for being the hook to which the author was pulled in to the world of AI podcasts, and consequently found their output rather lacking in content.

You could substitute the word knitting for almost any hobby, and the article would read almost the same.

It's an article about the soulless content-free world of AI podcasting, and about how AI output is about validating the emotions of the listener rather than meaningful content.

Re: Knitting bullshit

#90

I wonder if (or, more accurately hope that) this kind of slop will eventually die out as people realise how little care is put into it. I am more and more convinced that if the devil existed he'd take care of the bigger stuff, but have an army of little devils that encourage people to do things like make unsupervised automated podcasts about knitting, relentlessly chipping away at the messy joys of living.

I really doubt it's going to die out.

I think a lot of the value in these AI Podcasts is just the self-validation of the listener. It really doesn't matter to the listener if there's nothing between Egyptian socks and Revelry because the point was to feel good not to learn.

But also because I've had a long standing pet peeve with news articles that include random ass stock footage in articles. If humans can get away with include a picture of _any_ ship when talking about a specific ship (that may have never been in the harbor the picture shows) then why does the AI need to be correct?

Post reply on HN