241–250 of 258 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And that makes it somehow okay? You just don't care about billions of deaths? Like, do you think I'd argue that any of the previous mass extinctions were good ?
We might not be here without those mass extinction events. So yeah, they were good, fck the dinos.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The mother of social media is free TV. We tend to forget that both, the social and the media part, input and output, are interpersonal, first. Ad targeting doesn't need improvement. The incentives offered to people with an adverse attitude towards Ads are shit. Think of incentives as having effects and side effects. It's about intent. Free TV had that down ages ago. It was awesome. But they fucked market entry and wh…
I’m not sure I understood more than half of your comment, but there is a significant, massive difference between social media and TV. TV was filtered and averaged to appeal to a wide audience. By design, it could not target small niches like social media does. Or amplify them - only a few, selected people, with hard edges removed, became part of a broadcast. Same for ads, we did not have 1% of the current targeting a…
... to appeal to the widest of audience(s) at the same time.
> filtered and averaged
... feeds, websites, news, ... everything is filtered and averaged, ... we have a lot of city part of town "content" because there are audiences--already there--who are drawn towards city parts of town content and produce ...
> we did not have 1% of the current targeting and retargeting capabilities.
You and I didn't. Some folks did. Some had access to cables. Others to satellites. Some were bosses and managers and fancied their power and enough of all these people had no issue with a lack of boundaries and nothing to stay busy enough with ( or the intensity of their predilections was a little too much ) ...
Convenience and accessibility are not capabilities/skill. To some people in every city part of town, things just don't look like anything to them. Monkey see, monkey do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same could be said about any of the many mass extinction events in earth history. Not that I’m in favor of setting the planet on fire, but if you zoom out far enough it’s clear earth would bounce back from even a nuclear war coupled with climate change and microplastics.
And that makes it somehow okay? You just don't care about billions of deaths? Like, do you think I'd argue that any of the previous mass extinctions were good ?
I’ll leave it to other comments to discuss the societal and moral implications of being able to do this (which, I agree, ick…). On a practical level: We train an encoding model, a “digital twin”, that predicts how each visual region responds to any video. Now we can ask: which video would make a chosen region light up the most? NEvo searches for that video automatically, using the twin’s prediction as its reward. I o…
A. Unless you think that brain science is immoral science, then I do not see any problem with this kind of research. As a neuroscientist, I strongly object to the insinuation as unfounded. B. "Digital twins" e.g. [1] are a growing class of brain simulations that can successfully approximate brain activity patterns at large scale. I think these can be very useful, but we shouldn't think that they are at the level of a…
Perhaps we’re naive and this is a long way from being possible - but it seems like the way this is heading eventually and that seems obviously bad for society.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And that makes it somehow okay? You just don't care about billions of deaths? Like, do you think I'd argue that any of the previous mass extinctions were good ?
Not good but definitely inevitable. It’s sort of like a cache clearing mechanism for the sim.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If YouTube is social media, anything with a comments section is social media, even the old "guestbooks" of web 1.0 days were social media. It's a pointless term whoever uses it.
Youtube is very obviously social media. It is a platform that serves algorithmically sorted third party content based on user preferences and a network of accounts that a user follows, and it allows communication between users through comments. It has communities. It has memes. It is certainly addictive in all of the ways social media can be.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Youtube is very obviously social media. It is a platform that serves algorithmically sorted third party content based on user preferences and a network of accounts that a user follows, and it allows communication between users through comments. It has communities. It has memes. It is certainly addictive in all of the ways social media can be.
Forums are social media. Irc is social media. BBS is social media. They all qualify under your definition.
More to the point, "social media" is not as strictly defined as many people on HN want it to be, because social media features have crept into numerous platforms and applications over the years, so it really can be subjective.
* maybe some have, IDK.
Aee they trying to create snow crash for real??? [1] https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/184341/in-the-nove...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_Jest
> a film, Infinite Jest, also called "the Entertainment" or "the samizdat". The film is so compelling that its viewers lose all interest in anything other than repeatedly viewing it, and thus eventually die.
This is the absolutely horrific next stage for social media platforms: - They're already well able to surface the most addictive short video for a specific user out of millions of real videos. - But these millions of real videos are just darts thrown into the space of "videos that could hook the user", in the end even the best-selected of them is not perfect. - Now, behold! AI allows to generate the perfect video to…
I think you're giving this a bit too much credence. And I think you also think there's something special about sorting videos by how often they're viewed in a recent timeframe (which is all you need to recreate evil social media algorithm)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m not sure I understood more than half of your comment, but there is a significant, massive difference between social media and TV. TV was filtered and averaged to appeal to a wide audience. By design, it could not target small niches like social media does. Or amplify them - only a few, selected people, with hard edges removed, became part of a broadcast. Same for ads, we did not have 1% of the current targeting a…
> to appeal to a wide audience. ... to appeal to the widest of audience(s) at the same time. > filtered and averaged ... feeds, websites, news, ... everything is filtered and averaged, ... we have a lot of city part of town "content" because there are audiences-- already there --who are drawn towards city parts of town content and produce ... > we did not have 1% of the current targeting and retargeting capabilities.…
No they didn’t. I’m sorry but this seems to be pure waffle.