This is not the future • Hacker News Board

Re: This is not the future

#291

Post by shishy » Tue, Dec 16, 2025, 5:17 PM UTC

bostonwalker wrote: post #264

shishy wrote: post #88

The idea that the future is architected by our choices (or lack of it) is the crux of one of the opportunity spaces at the Advanced Research and Invention Agency (ARIA) in the UK. Worth getting on your radar if this stuff is of interesting: https://aria.org.uk/opportunity-spaces/collective-flourishin... (full disclosure: I'm working with the programme director on helping define the funding programme, so if you're wor…

RE your link, I am not sure that anything of value has been articulated in describing this vague notion of "Collective Flourishing". After reading the page two or three times, the best I can understand is that it seems to be a call for technical solutions to problems that are actually deeply social in nature and require social solutions. Strange to see such nebulous slop coming from an official government agency.

Hi - the opportunity space page is meant to be broad; a more specific and targeted programme thesis within that is going to come out in the coming months. I should mention that it's not just a call for technical solutions because, as you note, a lot of this is deeply rooted in social systems and requires design solutions (i.e. it's not just building more tech). But that is good feedback!

Re: This is not the future

#292

Post by nostrademons » Tue, Dec 16, 2025, 5:17 PM UTC

rmah wrote: post #120

nostrademons wrote: post #38

I think a more accurate and more useful framing is: Game theory is inevitable . Because game theory is just math, the study of how independent actors react to incentives. The specific examples called out here may or may not be inevitable. It's true that the future is unknowable, but it's also true that the future is made up of 8B+ independent actors and that they're going to react to incentives. It's also true that y…

The statement "Game theory is inevitable. Because game theory is just math, the study of how independent actors react to incentives." implies that the "actors" are humans. But that's not what game theory assumes. Game theory just provides a mathematical framework to analyze outcomes of decisions when parts of the system have different goals. Game theory does not claim to predict human behavior (humans make mistakes,…

Game theory is still inevitable. Its application to humans may be non-obvious.

In particular, the "games" can operate on the level of non-human actors like genes, or memes, or dollars. Several fields generate much more accurate conclusions when you detach yourself from an anthrocentric viewpoint, eg. evolutionary biology was revolutionized by the idea of genes as selfish actors rather than humans trying to pass along their genes; in particular, it explains such concepts as death, sexual selection, and viruses. Capitalism and bureaucracy both make a lot more sense when you give up the idea of them existing for human betterment and instead take the perspective of them existing simply for the purpose of existing (i.e. those organizations that survive are, well, those organizations that survive; there is nothing morally good or bad about them, but the filter that they passed is simply that they did not go bankrupt or get disbanded).

But underneath those, game theory is still fundamental. You can use it to analyze the incentives and selection pressures on the system, whether they are at sub-human (eg. viral, genetic, molecular), human, or super-human (memetic, capitalist, organizational, bureaucratic, or civilizational) scales.

Re: This is not the future

#293

Post by w10-1 » Tue, Dec 16, 2025, 5:18 PM UTC

Any theory of how people behave works so long as (key) people follow it.

It's not really game theory but economics: the supply curve for nicely contended markets, and transaction costs for everything. Game theory only addresses the information aspects of transaction costs, and translates mostly only for equal power and information (markets).

The more enduring theory is the roof; i.e., it mostly reduces to what team you're on: which mafia don, or cold-war side, or technology you're leveraging for advantage. In this context, signaling matters most: identifying where you stand. As an influencer, the signal is that you're the leading edge, so people should follow you. The betas vie to grow the alpha, and the alpha boosts or cuts betas to retain their role as decider. The roof creates the roles and empowers creatures, not vice-versa.

The character of the roof depends on resources available: what military, economic, spiritual or social threat is wielded (in the cold war, capitalism, religion or culture wars).

The roof itself - the political franchise of the protection racket - is the origin of "civilization". The few escapes from such oppression are legendary and worth emulating, but rare. Still, that's our responsibility: to temper or escape.

Re: This is not the future

#294

Post by stuffn » Tue, Dec 16, 2025, 5:18 PM UTC

This is definitely a stallman-esque shitpost.

Casual thinking, as the author implies is necessary, would make you realize all of this was inevitable. The whole reason the tech boom existed, the whole reason the author is typing on what I can only guess is a 2005 T-series, the whole reason the internet made it, the whole reason all of this works, is STRICTLY because they wrenched control from us.

If FOSS was gonna work it would've by now. I love FOSS, but FOSS enthusiasts are so obnoxiously snobby about everything. In 30+ years linux has wrenched all of 1-2% more of the desktop market away from the giants.

This was all inevitable.

Re: This is not the future

#295

Post by danaris » Tue, Dec 16, 2025, 5:18 PM UTC

dj_gitmo wrote: post #225

simgt wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Re Tiktok, what is definitely not inevitable is the monetization of human attention. It's only a matter of policy. Without it the incentives to make Tiktok would have been greatly reduced, if even economically possible at all.

> what is definitely not inevitable is the monetization of human attention. It's only a matter of policy. Without it the incentives to make Tiktok would have been greatly reduced, if even economically possible at all. This is not a new thing. TV monetizes human attention. Tiktok is just an evolution of TV. And Tiktok comes from China which has a very different society. If short-form algo slop video can thrive in both…

The monetization of attention was a side effect of TV, not the primary purpose.

TikTok and other current efforts have that monetization as their primary purpose.

The profit-first-everything-else-never approach typical in late-stage capitalism was not inevitable. It is very possible to see the specific turns that led us to this point, and they did not have to happen.

Re: This is not the future

#296

Post by always_smiling » Tue, Dec 16, 2025, 5:18 PM UTC

lekevicius wrote: post #28

I do disagree that some of these were not inevitable. Let me deconstruct a couple: > Tiktok is not inevitable. TikTok the app and company, not inevitable. Short form video as the medium, and algorithm that samples entire catalog (vs just followers) were inevitable. Short form video follows gradual escalation of most engaging content formats, with legacy stretching from short-form-text in Twitter, short-form-photo in…

> Short form video as the medium, and algorithm that samples entire catalog (vs just followers) were inevitable.

Just objectively false and assumes that the path humans took to allow this is the only path that unfolded.

Much of this tech could have been regulated early on, preventing garbage like short-form slop, from existing.

So in short, none of what you are describing is "inevitable". Someone might come up with it, and others can group together and say: "We aren't doing that, that is awful".

Re: This is not the future

#297

Post by aanet » Tue, Dec 16, 2025, 5:19 PM UTC

alwa wrote: post #285

CGMthrowaway wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A practical formula: 1) Identify coordination failures that lock us into bad equilibria, e.g. it's impossible to defect from the online ads model without losing access to a valuable social graph 2) Look for leverage that rewrites the payoffs for a coalition rather than for one individual: right-to-repair laws, open protocols, interoperable standards, fiduciary duty, reputation systems, etc. 3) Accept that heroic non-…

As a recent example, Jon Haidt seems to have used this kind of tactic to pull off a coup with the whole kids/smartphones/social media thing [0]. Everybody knew social media tech was corrosive and soul-rotting, but nobody could move individually to stand up against its “inevitability.” Individual families felt like, if they took away or postponed their kids’ phones, their kid would be left out and ostracized—which was…

Great.

Now let's do the same to AI slop, what many (including Haidt and co., Australia, etc) have done to lessen kids social media usage.

FWIW, I gave up on FB/Twttr crap a while ago... Unfortunately, I'm still stuck with WhatsApp and LI (both big blights) for now.

YMMV

Re: This is not the future

#298

Post by dtn » Tue, Dec 16, 2025, 5:21 PM UTC

xvector wrote: post #217

terminalshort wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The people who build, maintain, and own the datacenters. The people who work at and own the companies that make the hardware in the datacenters. The people who work to build new power plants to power the data centers. The truck drivers that transport all the supplies to build the data centers and power plants. These are all real people.

One thing I've noticed - artists view their own job as more valuable, more sacred, more important than virtually any other person's job. They canonize themselves, and then act all shocked and offended when the rest of the world doesn't share their belief. Obviously the existence of AI is valuable enough to pay the cost of offsetting a few artists' jobs, it's not even a question to us, but to artists it's shocking and…

> One thing I've noticed - artists view their own job as more valuable, more sacred, more important than virtually any other person's job.

> They canonize themselves, and then act all shocked and offended when the rest of the world doesn't share their belief.

You could've written this about software engineers and tech workers.

> Obviously the existence of AI is valuable enough to pay the cost of offsetting a few artists' jobs, it's not even a question to us

No, it's not obvious at all. Current AI models have made it 100x easier to spread disinformation, sow discord, and undermine worker rights. These have more value to me than being able to more efficiently Add Shareholder Value

Re: This is not the future

#299

Post by visarga » Tue, Dec 16, 2025, 5:21 PM UTC

croes wrote: post #31

lekevicius wrote: post #28

I do disagree that some of these were not inevitable. Let me deconstruct a couple: > Tiktok is not inevitable. TikTok the app and company, not inevitable. Short form video as the medium, and algorithm that samples entire catalog (vs just followers) were inevitable. Short form video follows gradual escalation of most engaging content formats, with legacy stretching from short-form-text in Twitter, short-form-photo in…

> Short form video as the medium, and algorithm that samples entire catalog (vs just followers) were inevitable. I doubt that. There is a reason the videos get longer again. So people could have ignored the short form from the beginning. And wasn’t the matching algorithm the teal killer feature that amazed people, not the length of the videos?

Shorts are everywhere because it is the most addictive form of media, easy to consume, no effort required to follow through.

More generally I think the problems we got into were inevitable. They are the result of platforms optimizing for their own interests at the expense of both creatives and users, and that is what any company would do.

All the platforms enshittified, they exploit their users first, by ranking addictive content higher, then they also influence creatives by making it clear only those who fit the Algorithm will see top rankings. This happens on Google, YT, Meta, Amazon, Play Store, App Store - it's everywhere. The ranking algorithm is "prompting" humans to make slop. Creatives also optimize for their self interest and spam the platforms.

Re: This is not the future

#300

Post by yesco » Tue, Dec 16, 2025, 5:21 PM UTC

tolerance wrote: post #16

This is high quality blog post! I’m all for a good argument that appears to challenge the notion of technological determinism. > Every choice is both a political statement and a tradeoff based on the energy we can spend on the consequences of that choice. Frequently I’ve been opposed to this sort of sentiment. Maybe it’s me, the author’s argument, or a combination of both, but I’m beginning to better understand how t…

Yeah, following the OP's logic, if I think this obsession with purity tests and politicizing every tool choice is more toxic than an LLM could ever be, then I should actively undermine that norm.

So I guess I'm morally obligated to use LLMs specifically to reject this framework? Works for me.