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

Center for Humane Technology

humanetech.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–17 of 17 posts

Re: Center for Humane Technology

#11

Post by jackhack »

ozten wrote: post #5

When I saw my first computer and it had a painting program, I was blown away at the creative possibilities. Today many people have a super computer in their pocket, but 99% do nothing creative with this power. [1] TV, Radio, Books we've always seen the potential to amplify humanity early in roll-out of the technology, but eventually settle on the lowest common denominator as human behavior gravitates towards self-ind…

I have long wondered how much Mozart could have composed with a modern synthesizer and garageband. And similarly, Shakespeare with an electric typewriter, or (more incredible yet) a word processing rather than a quill and ink!

But then my cynicism kicks in and I imagine them each spending days on facebook and watching cat videos.

Re: Center for Humane Technology

#12

Post by jackhack »

GCU-Empiricist wrote: post #2

The general problem will always be that the lowest common denominator of users will always fall into Skinner boxes, and barring a complete change how resources are allocated services that use low level manipulation of human psychology will attract advertising dollars.

So long as we accept the idea of being the product that is sold, yes, that is the case. I expect the market to stratify though, as some not-insignificant percentage realizes their life/time is too valuable to be wasted on someone else's marketing spend.

Re: Center for Humane Technology

#13

Post by neveroffensive »

rbongers wrote: post #8
joeblow9999 wrote: post #6

the smug, it is strong with these ones. They might as well say "We are your betters and you should live how we think is best for you" Maybe I like the YouTube feature that autostreams the next video. It's like they didn't even consider that maybe not everyone wants to live exactly their way. They even go so far as "We are advising governments on smart policies and better user protections." Please save me from the You…

You're right, it would be great if we could all use software how we wanted. Unfortunately by exploiting people's psychologies, what people want and what people do become very different things for some. For example, it's currently not possible to turn off youtube's autoplay feature on some devices. This is a practice that could be deemed unethical. Of course, as an adult, I can actively seek out forms of improving my…

> These are just some areas that governments could help with that could potentially help people achieve more of what they want in life without infringing on what anyone wants to do with software.

Should this really be the governments job? We've been walking the line between an authoritarian and rights based government for years. IMHO it's one of the reasons the budge is so out of wack, and politics have become so derisive. Everybody has a different idea of how the government can make society better. The problem is, the government ends up enforcing whichever view wins out by putting guns to peoples heads (figuratively at first, but often times literally in the end). Maybe it's better to let the government focus on day to day law and order, and let another device grapple with social problems like this.

Edit:

At the very least, if you don't mind the government enforcing arbitrary rules for social good, realize it's going to be expensive (in the monetary sense).

Re: Center for Humane Technology

#14

Post by civilian »

rbongers wrote: post #10
civilian wrote: post #9

On the plus side, Netflix is saving children from hundreds of hours of commercials a year! Snapchat does add the metric of conversation streaks, but _that isnt the point_ and it's honestly not enough to keep me using it. I like snapchat cuz I like seeing people's faces or the random things that they are seeing. This is a stupid initiative.

I think it's great that you don't find that Snapchat impacts your life negatively, and you're probably in good company. For many people this isn't the case. All we have is our life. Some people feel that they waste theirs on platforms like Snapchat and they're powerless to stop. I don't think that for those people this initiative is stupid.

"People can't help themselves" lacks so much persuasion. You'd be at home in puritan Massachusetts, where all fun is banned.

Re: Center for Humane Technology

#15

Post by rbongers »

civilian wrote: post #14
rbongers wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's great that you don't find that Snapchat impacts your life negatively, and you're probably in good company. For many people this isn't the case. All we have is our life. Some people feel that they waste theirs on platforms like Snapchat and they're powerless to stop. I don't think that for those people this initiative is stupid.

"People can't help themselves" lacks so much persuasion. You'd be at home in puritan Massachusetts, where all fun is banned.

"People can't help themselves" is natural.

The fact that there is a gap between who people want to be and the choices they make is not a disputed fact.

Without it, we would have no concept of shame, motivation, or self improvement.

Further, it's not disputed that companies have now been studying and exploiting the mechanisms of human behavioural triggers for the better part of a century now (just look into the history of advertising strategies).

Outright banning is not what I would want, and I would hope that it isn't what anyone would want. It's about giving MORE people the freedom to use software how they want. Options to control their use of software should they need it. Education for children on these exploitation techniques in order to protect them from it. Not banning anything.

Re: Center for Humane Technology

#16

Post by joeblow9999 »

rbongers wrote: post #8
joeblow9999 wrote: post #6

the smug, it is strong with these ones. They might as well say "We are your betters and you should live how we think is best for you" Maybe I like the YouTube feature that autostreams the next video. It's like they didn't even consider that maybe not everyone wants to live exactly their way. They even go so far as "We are advising governments on smart policies and better user protections." Please save me from the You…

You're right, it would be great if we could all use software how we wanted. Unfortunately by exploiting people's psychologies, what people want and what people do become very different things for some. For example, it's currently not possible to turn off youtube's autoplay feature on some devices. This is a practice that could be deemed unethical. Of course, as an adult, I can actively seek out forms of improving my…

"These are just some areas that governments could help with that could potentially help people achieve more of what they want in life without infringing on what anyone wants to do with software."

Governmen should get involved with whether or not YouTube autoplays the next video? Are you serious?

Out of curiosity, what do you think government should NOT be involved in?

Re: Center for Humane Technology

#17

Post by rbongers »

joeblow9999 wrote: post #16
rbongers wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right, it would be great if we could all use software how we wanted. Unfortunately by exploiting people's psychologies, what people want and what people do become very different things for some. For example, it's currently not possible to turn off youtube's autoplay feature on some devices. This is a practice that could be deemed unethical. Of course, as an adult, I can actively seek out forms of improving my…

"These are just some areas that governments could help with that could potentially help people achieve more of what they want in life without infringing on what anyone wants to do with software." Governmen should get involved with whether or not YouTube autoplays the next video? Are you serious? Out of curiosity, what do you think government should NOT be involved in?

"Governmen should get involved with whether or not YouTube autoplays the next video?"

This is reductive. The government should be involved in preventing practices that harm consumers. Some consumers would find that they can't help themselves from watching endless videos. And no, they should not be involved in whether it autoplays. They should be involved in allowing OPTIONS deciding whether it autoplays. This was just an example. Why should the government not help consumers who feel harmed in a way that would not impact others just because you wouldn't find a use for it?

"Out of curiosity, what do you think government should NOT be involved in?"

This is also a reductive. I have only named one area the government should be involved in. I am not a statist. There is a clear harm caused by certain practices which exploit the behavioural instincts of humans. I think there is enough harm to warrant government involvement to protect consumers.

Post reply on HN