Live data from Hacker News

Everything we like is a psyop?

techcrunch.com

101–110 of 262 posts

Re: Everything we like is a psyop?

#101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not all are swayed. The hard thing is finding which ones are, and which ones aren't. I rely on a web of trust. When I see another new hot AI trend, I check it against whether any of the people I've followed via RSS or manually curated on Twitter, Mastodon, etc (many of whom I met IRL) have said anything about it. There's still a an undercurrent of people blogging and posting and chatting who are trustworthy and haven…

It's hard to express, but it seems the best way to sus-out who is a shill and who's authentic is by comparing across reviews for a product. It's almost a bit like AI speak. The shills will all have very similar sounding content. They'll all hit on the same (ad copy) points. They might mix in a few negative tidbits, but generally speaking you'll catch them all praising the same wizbang features. Mkbhd is my favorite b…

> It's hard to express, but it seems the best way to sus-out who is a shill and who's authentic is by comparing across reviews for a product.

Brandolini’s law strikes again: you really have to pay attention to catch a shill. 99% of the time when you’re not paying attention and intentionally shopping for a particular product is when they get you.

Re: Everything we like is a psyop?

#102

I think most users of websites like reddit, x, and yes even HN don't realize how much traffic is inorganic. Marketing firms, government agencies, and many other interested parties with money to burn are absolutely aware that you search "best {product} reddit" I've commented on this before, but I strongly suspect much of the narrative around AI is being formed with strong inputs from these patterns. What's your basis…

this is why oldschool chat > social media curating for trust and expertise and diversity of opinion

This is why influencers are making bank. Everybody still believes randos on the internet might be genuine.

Re: Everything we like is a psyop?

#104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When reading this I immediately thought of them. Anyone I know who plays an instrument said their socials are flooded with them.

Socials being flooded across the board feels weird, but it's also how network effects are _supposed_ to work. I just hate the fact that I feel jaded and cynical about this as my default position.

Social media is not driven by network effects though. It’s driven by algorithmic engagement and its operation is opaque.

Re: Everything we like is a psyop?

#105
Never thought I'd be reading this on TechCrunch but fully resonates and it's an interesting article. Also, I understand why some people think we live in a simulation. It can be explained to some extent; we're glued to our phones/devices and those devices choose what information we see.

We are only aware of the stuff that our devices show to us; yet the vastness of the internet creates a false sense that we know everything. This dual reality (deep reality vs the surface reality we see) creates the feeling of being in a simulation; we have a feeling that there's another reality beyond our simulation. We implicitly trust the algorithms to do the curation for us, personalized to our tastes, but the algorithms are heavily biased towards popular content, ideas and people. It's a tiny subset of reality that's highly manipulated and fake. The less critically-minded you are, the smaller but more pleasant your world is (until you reach a certain point?).

We have hype leading adoption, which funds development capacity which leads to slight improvements, which lead to consolidation of hype... But there exist alternatives that are 10x better from the beginning but lacking the hype component altogether and those things appear to not exist. Value creators are often terrible at marketing. It's hard to sell to people who are inside the simulation when you are outside of it because you don't speak the same language.

The contrast between form vs substance has reached comically absurd levels and sadly, the clear winner is form.

To really get the full picture, you almost have to already know all the key information. At best, AI/LLMs can give you confirmation of your existing knowledge with additional supporting data... But even that's under attack; there are narratives trying to discredit the objectivity of LLMs by saying that they are programmed to agree with you for engagement... That's a persuasive narrative, especially in the age of fake news, but I really hope we ignore these narratives; we just have to observe that LLMs do in fact push back effectively when you're wrong! You can't make an LLM agree with you on facts that are wrong no matter how many times or how many ways you repeat them. The only wiggle-room is in terms of 'importance' or 'relevance', not facts.

Critical thinking (e.g. poking holes in otherwise perfectly satisfying explanations) is now more important than ever if you want to stay connected to reality because there are incredibly powerful forces in place to make sure we stay on the first layer.

Re: Everything we like is a psyop?

#106
post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hard to express, but it seems the best way to sus-out who is a shill and who's authentic is by comparing across reviews for a product. It's almost a bit like AI speak. The shills will all have very similar sounding content. They'll all hit on the same (ad copy) points. They might mix in a few negative tidbits, but generally speaking you'll catch them all praising the same wizbang features. Mkbhd is my favorite b…

> It's hard to express, but it seems the best way to sus-out who is a shill and who's authentic is by comparing across reviews for a product. Brandolini’s law strikes again: you really have to pay attention to catch a shill. 99% of the time when you’re not paying attention and intentionally shopping for a particular product is when they get you.

Yeah, really does not help that the internet seems to be built from the ground up to reward shilling.

Click on a shill video in youtube and you'll have 20 identical videos on the same topic.

But also, advertisers are smart and you have to assume they know you are on the lookout for a shill. I have to assume the why shilling works will continue to evolve as the way to detect shilling evolves.

I expect we'll end up with something like this in the future [1].

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gArU-BAO7Kw

Re: Everything we like is a psyop?

#107
post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like they did good-faith estimate that there were 5000 stores out there and really believed they had 20% of the market? I wouldn't call that a lie as such.

They made up a number, and then quoted that number to other people (presumably with the intent to benefit themselves) without disclosing that they'd made up the number in the first place. That seems to jump right past 'lie' into 'fraud' or worse. I have this growing belief that what's wrong with America is that we've tossed a great deal of virtue (both personal and public) into the woodchipper, using a lot of euphemi…

The "poisoning the noosphere" is a very good description.

There is someone called Peter Ralston; on YouTube there's a few videos of him and in one bit from an interview he starts on honesty. "Honesty", he says, "is a skill most people don't appreciate". I was really impressed by that "is a skill" qualification. Never thought about it this way. But yes, it is a skill. First you learn it and then it changes you.

Re: Everything we like is a psyop?

#108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A good reason to find specific individuals with relevant knowledge and follow their writing directly. As soon as they get popular enough they'll be approached with offers to shill in exchange for huge piles of money. That's the entire point of "influencers". Trusted people being turned into secret advertisers and billboards.

Not all are swayed. The hard thing is finding which ones are, and which ones aren't. I rely on a web of trust. When I see another new hot AI trend, I check it against whether any of the people I've followed via RSS or manually curated on Twitter, Mastodon, etc (many of whom I met IRL) have said anything about it. There's still a an undercurrent of people blogging and posting and chatting who are trustworthy and haven…

I, too, rely on your web of trust, please don't ever break my heart Jeff!

It makes sense they'd be harder to find, I imagine there are more opportunities to make money by selling your soul than by offering honest review, and people with large investments have large incentives to dilute signal in their favor.

It's sad that so many platforms let it happen, but it makes sense when the users aren't the ones paying the bills. I'm immensely grateful for those that resist though, and if I were a religious person I would nominate them for sainthood or reincarnation or at least a plaque on a nice park bench somewhere.

Re: Everything we like is a psyop?

#109
post #97
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

related: Cursor composer line of models is so good relative to cost. "auto" served me just fine until they recommended Composer and I've been continually happy with it. Then Claude Code with Opus dropped and everyone went bananas and I gotta say I just assumed I'm too casual to know how bad Cursor has been? But then I think maybe not really? Granted, I'm not orchestrating 100 Agents doing overnight work. But relating…

I haven't used Cursor much lately, but with Opus/Codex I can program with very few bugs without having to look at any code at all, over months of working on the same codebase. I don't think any other model can do that, no?

In Cursor I look at the code diff for my own satisfaction and understanding. I've been able to auto-accept all changes pretty reliably all last year.

So much so that i've yet to invest in CC. Finally downloaded the desktop app but use it exclusively for chat and cowork.

Cursor's purgatory UX is what'll finally get me to invest in CC and codex. Not model performance.

I do think there's a caveat that it's pretty standard nextjs with rails api.

edit: found your blog post about your experience, i'll read it! https://www.stavros.io/posts/how-i-write-software-with-llms/

edit2: maybe it's because i spend a lot of time being clear with small and surgical asks after doing purely thought exploring prompts to confirm and home in on approaches. At the point I hit build or do Agent mode, Composer is mostly always spot on.

with Opus (haven't tried) maybe people are doing large-scale multi phase and single shot prompts that trigger a swarm of sub agents?

Re: Everything we like is a psyop?

#110
> But it’s never that simple. The real story is that Geese worked with a marketing firm called Chaotic Good, which creates thousands of social media accounts designed to manufacture trends on behalf of their clients

The complexity of being popular increases as the complexity of the environment increase. I'm started to think, maybe this is an unavoidable stage in the development.

Today's Internet is filled with high quality (at least engagement wise) content which the platforms are trying to promote to retain users. These content could occupy the free time of the user, after a certain time threshold has reached, they stops watching the platform all together.

This creates some competitiveness, unless you are also doing something highly optimized (for example, "hack the algorithm"), your effort may gone unnoticed, short-noticed or delayed-noticed, and that could lead to commercial failure.

The "psyop" is new the game rule simply because it should give you a chance to compete against other established content.

Post reply on HN