Live data from Hacker News

Engineered Addictions

masonyarbrough.substack.com

351–360 of 467 posts

Re: Engineered Addictions

#351
post #20

> Then it raised venture capital, hit scale, and needed to hit growth numbers and meet quarterly metric goals. The focus shifted from “authenticity” to “daily active users.” Having spent a few years in the VC world I have been increasingly convinced outside investment is the biggest reason why companies lose their morals. The legal obligation to represent shareholders erodes morality. When the people running these co…

> Having spent a few years in the VC world I have been increasingly convinced outside investment is the biggest reason why companies lose their morals. The legal obligation to represent shareholders erodes morality. When the people running these companies feel they’re beholden to shareholders and can’t act on their own agency of course they will turn to addiction research not as a warning but as a guidebook.

As an outsider I don’t believe it. Morals? I don’t even see a nugget or trace of some elevated goal in all of these stories.

Shareholders or not, the companies have to make money. Now us users have been gaslit for years about us just being too stingy to “pay for the product”, therefore we “become the product”. But all of these gamification/social media platforms were made to be free. Obviously there had to be a path to monetization. Morals or not. And they all end up in the same place.

Duolingo was co-founded by the inventor of Captcha. One of the ideas was to use people as translators, similar to the Mechanical Turk idea of letting people do some chore and using the product. Anyway, they also monetized eventually. Now what has Duolingo actually done for langauge learning? According to many people now, nothing. Look on YouTube. People post about their streaks. I.e. the gamification. The last video I saw was barely about how Duolingo helped at all. They had the typical “of course you can’t use only Duolingo” and then they listed all the other approaches and techniques. Well, did Duolingo serve any role? They said repetition. Well the repetition is for very artificial and out of context words and phrases. That Duolingo learners are like fish out of water in a context where they have to apply their knowledge is a meme at this point.

Another fun, very SC thing[1] about DuoLingo is/was the volunteer community. Yes of course a volunteer community to boost the for-profit platform. That’s how you get Klingon.

The AI-fication, aggressive ads, and pay-to-streak (you can artificially pause a streak for a whole month apparently) has made people worry and complain. And not because they are making a good language learning app worse to use, even. It seems to be mostly that people are hooked to the streak and are now even more annoyed by the hoop they have to go through (the app itself) to maintain it.

So what did Duolingo (DL) achieve? It made people fret and worry about their streak. That’s it. I had a friend who was so glad that he was getting close to a one-year streak on DL. Why? Because then he could quit. I wrote like one or two sentences that I recalled in his target language. He didn’t understand it.

[1] See StackExchange. I remember Jeff Atwood’s very humble blog piece about how he made his millions. It was of course all him but he had a good upbringing and access to good schools of course. No mention of the employees, but that’s just normal capitalist things so that’s fine. But also no mention that he made a platform based on volunteer work. Hmm. Self-made man? In SC culture he is. Because getting users/fools to work for you for free is the ultimate disruption.

Re: Engineered Addictions

#352

Late in the thread, but is this really addiction? How do you differentiate between addiction and people really liking something? In my opinion, unless people try to stop doing the thing but they can't will themselves to do that, it isn't an addiction. It is not OK to dilute terms used to describe serious problems. I am not saying tech addiction can't happen, I just haven't seen any evidence to that effect. Mere depen…

> addiction is [dependency] plus inability to quit the habit despite strong and persistent effort > I am not saying tech addiction can't happen, I just haven't seen any evidence to that effect Which planet do you live on? It's hard to read this in good faith. Nobody has a "technology usage" addiction. The digital dopamine drip-feed in your pocket delivers by design in a way a spoon or double-entry bookkeeping does no…

It sound like you are well educated on the mechanics of addiction, using terms like "dopamine" as if that indicates addiction. People get dopamine from all sorts of every day activities and interactions, care to explain how that indicates addiction? If I exercise habitually (which gives tons of dopamine) do I have an addiction or just a habit I enjoy?

Did you know that even LSD/Acid has no biological/medical addiction property, but caffeine does? Addiction requires a literal rewiring of the brain at a biological level.

And please try to avoid the passive-aggressive "which planet do you live on" tone, it doesn't help with the whole civilized discussion thing on HN :)

Re: Engineered Addictions

#353

Late in the thread, but is this really addiction? How do you differentiate between addiction and people really liking something? In my opinion, unless people try to stop doing the thing but they can't will themselves to do that, it isn't an addiction. It is not OK to dilute terms used to describe serious problems. I am not saying tech addiction can't happen, I just haven't seen any evidence to that effect. Mere depen…

There are plenty of addictions where the incentive to stop never appears, and I wouldn't call those "not" addictions just because someone hasn't tried to stop or had a reason to.

Scientifically speaking, I would expect that pattern of habit to be studied, and for individuals to be unable to quit, and for actual electro-chemical rewiring of the brain (as nicotine,caffeine and harder drugs do) to be established.

Until then, why can't it just be called a habit? addiction very strongly implies inability to quit. Have you seen the 90's congressional testimony of tobacco CEO's all swearing on oath that Nicotine isn't addictive? That's how strong of a case you have to make for an addiction to be established. If you dilute the term and use it anonymously with "habit" then actual addictions can be dismissed or crooked people that facilitate addictions can avoid consequences.

At the very least, there needs to be a pattern of inability to quit the habit. Positive reinforcement signals are not in themselves indicators of addiction (case in point: LSD/Acid -- it isn't considered addictive, neither is good tasting food on its own).

Re: Engineered Addictions

#354
post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Common good: humans, according to systems theory, have the same needs and there's a finite set. We can map them & then design systems so as to satisfice all of them.

One of humans' needs is for status which is by definition zero sum. Same with mating. If anything those two are probably the most important needs so it's not possible to build such a system.

If it's zero sum you can design a system where everyone gets three sane amount. That's what strict monogamy does for mating, and you can easily imagine some "everyone is equal" communism-like system.

In practice that doesn't work, and the most successful "common good" systems instead ensure the disparity is limited and access is as equal as possible (e.g. not everyone can be wealthy, but the wealthy are not too rich and anyone had a chance to become rich instead of needing rich parents; or everyone can only have one married partner at a time instead of people who can afford it amassing big harems and not leaving any partners for the rest; or anyone can become famous, and famous people pushing their kids into fame is looked down on)

Re: Engineered Addictions

#355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are building a social network with chronological feed. I am thinking how to make it sustainable without raising VC funding but not doing aggressive ad targeting. Obviously people are not going to pay for a social network. So maybe just very generic sponsered links?

Could do what redsit does and offer programmatic advertising targeted based on subreddits

Yeah.. simple keyword matching might work.

But one for the rare case of ours taking off

Re: Engineered Addictions

#356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> addiction is [dependency] plus inability to quit the habit despite strong and persistent effort > I am not saying tech addiction can't happen, I just haven't seen any evidence to that effect Which planet do you live on? It's hard to read this in good faith. Nobody has a "technology usage" addiction. The digital dopamine drip-feed in your pocket delivers by design in a way a spoon or double-entry bookkeeping does no…

It sound like you are well educated on the mechanics of addiction, using terms like "dopamine" as if that indicates addiction. People get dopamine from all sorts of every day activities and interactions, care to explain how that indicates addiction? If I exercise habitually (which gives tons of dopamine) do I have an addiction or just a habit I enjoy? Did you know that even LSD/Acid has no biological/medical addictio…

the difference is simple, addiction is the compulsive/habitual action of something that does not have positive effects, more likely negative than neutral. For example, being "addicted" to gym is fine, because even if you enjoy the dopamine after, not the actual exercise, it's still good for you overall, and you cannot really overdo it. Caffeine makes you more productive, and you cannot really spiral, hence why caffeine is legal, but opioid drugs are not.

But for tech, scrolling tiktok for 5 hours a day, definitely does not have positive outcomes. It's like gambling. It's dopamine hit for dopamine hit's sake, and the delivery system is actively harming you.

Re: Engineered Addictions

#357
post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea that executives have a duty to maximize shareholder value is a trope from business ethics class, not law. I say this because you used the phrase "fiduciary duty" which does not exist in this context.

> from business ethics class, not law Well, there was one case in the law over 100 years ago in the USA. A company had decided to sell itself for cash and go out of business. The Court ruled, that in that situation, it should sell to the highest bidder. This is long before Milton Friedman began advocating that corporations had a duty to their common shareholders that provided the only valid yardstick for evaluating c…

It’s incredible how many people don’t understand this. Google is an obvious example that has multiple classes of stock and only some are voting shares.

There is the “shareholder lawsuit” but that really is about enforcing a company’s stated goals to its shareholders, which can and often are things other than “try to make the stock price go up as much as possible”.

Re: Engineered Addictions

#358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> addiction is [dependency] plus inability to quit the habit despite strong and persistent effort > I am not saying tech addiction can't happen, I just haven't seen any evidence to that effect Which planet do you live on? It's hard to read this in good faith. Nobody has a "technology usage" addiction. The digital dopamine drip-feed in your pocket delivers by design in a way a spoon or double-entry bookkeeping does no…

It sound like you are well educated on the mechanics of addiction, using terms like "dopamine" as if that indicates addiction. People get dopamine from all sorts of every day activities and interactions, care to explain how that indicates addiction? If I exercise habitually (which gives tons of dopamine) do I have an addiction or just a habit I enjoy? Did you know that even LSD/Acid has no biological/medical addictio…

Empty comment from me but thank you for being more nuanced than most about what constitutes an addiction. It’s tiring to listen to the HN wringing in some performance of outrage of who can be the most offended yet least affected by the article.

(The moderator(s) are praised endlessly but have done a terrible job of steering the community. They’ve merely shut out voices that were the loudest and most disagreeable, a phyrric victory at best)

Re: Engineered Addictions

#359
algorithm feed addiction is unsolvable, at least without some new drug.

As an immigrant to the US, I found dessert in US contains much more sugar than where I was. And when I make/recommend less sugary food, friends don't like it even though some of them admitted that's healthier.

so similar to diabetes, I would expect Ozempic for algorithm feed addiction will be available one day to solve this, or at least sounds like so (although I'm not fully convinced).

It may sounds dystopia, but addiction is a builtin feature of late stage capitalism, and it's already too late to turn around.

Re: Engineered Addictions

#360
post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a better idea: let's combat the notion that putting shareholder value ahead of the common good is moral.

Even better idea is not to have shareholders. After all there are millions of business running without external shareholders.

Or to remove limited liability from shareholders.
Post reply on HN