71–80 of 86 posts
If we look at it rationally, the phone numbers were an extra complexity layer introduced by technology. The smartphones solved that problem rightly so. You just have to member the person's name, rightly so.
"When I was a child in Sri Lanka, I ended up memorizing the landline numbers of all my close relatives. To this day I remember them. The moment I got a phone where my contacts could be saved, I stopped remembering numbers." If we look at it rationally, the phone numbers were an extra complexity layer introduced by technology. The smartphones solved that problem rightly so. You just have to member the person's name, r…
I don't think that's any more rational than suggesting smartphones supplanted memory training; the phone number is an implementation detail, the lack of practicing memorization of important information is a general case. Smartphones created a dependency on themselves and solved problems that mostly weren't problems, or were often tertiary optimization problems before they came along, while phone technology actually solved a fundamental problem with high-latency communication via mail.
If I ask myself whether I'm generally better off having my contact numbers in my smartphone vs before—which itself is a fictitious premise, since mobile phones had them before they got smart—the answer is definitely "no", because the distribution of people I call isn't so varied as to make memorizing them difficult, but my lack of inclination to do even that means I don't remember the most common case and always need to have the phone or I'm screwed.
It's hilarious to watch this play out with drivers who are entirely dependent on a Maps app for directions in their own city. They don't remember basic routes, address blocks, can't even do it sometimes without the phone speaking it to them. It wasn't really a problem before, you'd just figure it out most of the time, or ask someone for an approximation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe by then people will figure out entertainment is mostly a waste of time and ditch the pursuit of it. Hopefully for something more purpose-driven.
Could be the demise of a common popular culture. Everyone will have their own private bubble.
Think in the children of the future, growing with a much more advanced and ubiquitous technology, and the mental models they will have. Who knows what will happen, but seeing how slow education and regulations adapt and how fast big companies and consumerism grow and move, I'm not very optimistic.
It is even more worrying that what is defined here as "growth", and in other contexts can be interpreted as "quality", when absent or reduced, leads to a vicious cycle of ever-decreasing quality over time. Contemporary novels, especially those depicting modern times, are mostly terrible. I recently read a review of one such modern novel in the Financial Times—-the review was very promising—-and decided to buy and rea…
I always say that time is the best filter. In the moment, you can be easily mistaken that something is good, or the best even if the marketing team of that something is really going hard at your wallet. But the only way, and they know it too well, to assess quality is to simply...wait and see later. If you need a proof, here's one : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bookshop_Memories The "it was better before" is not a r…
Some decades in the past were not particularly good in terms of literary output (I am very familiar with literature in my native language and know much more than average in two or three other languages), but the last decade has been incredibly poor. And I suspect that it is becoming increasingly difficult to find original ideas. As time goes by, the average technical competence of artists almost inevitably increases, but the same cannot necessarily be said for creativity, for example.
"ChatGPT and by extension “AI” is likely the biggest “revolution” of my generation. It is likely also going to be the biggest killer of creativity in my generation. I always thought the creativity killer was going to be access to infinite entertainment. I think I was wrong." We're headed for near-infinite bad entertainment. Pretty soon, we're going to have fan fiction converted to movies by AI. It will be as bad as t…
Maybe by then people will figure out entertainment is mostly a waste of time and ditch the pursuit of it. Hopefully for something more purpose-driven.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I always say that time is the best filter. In the moment, you can be easily mistaken that something is good, or the best even if the marketing team of that something is really going hard at your wallet. But the only way, and they know it too well, to assess quality is to simply...wait and see later. If you need a proof, here's one : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bookshop_Memories The "it was better before" is not a r…
In fact, I wrote about the selection effect, but that "it was better before" is not holding up in my example, at least the one I had in mind. Some decades in the past were not particularly good in terms of literary output (I am very familiar with literature in my native language and know much more than average in two or three other languages), but the last decade has been incredibly poor. And I suspect that it is bec…
> Overcoming friction leads to growth. Comfort leads to stagnation.... I’ve come to believe that with the rise of convenience and comfort, it becomes harder for us to reach our potential.... A certain level of convenience can lead to efficiency gains. Automation is important for a reason. Too much convenience though, that's a killer. When friction was inherent in the system, applying ourselves led to growth as we ove…
Thats not a logical flaw, that's throwing out the premise of living in a logical world and saying "but if things worked completely differently, your argument makes no sense"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In fact, I wrote about the selection effect, but that "it was better before" is not holding up in my example, at least the one I had in mind. Some decades in the past were not particularly good in terms of literary output (I am very familiar with literature in my native language and know much more than average in two or three other languages), but the last decade has been incredibly poor. And I suspect that it is bec…
>And I suspect that it is becoming increasingly difficult to find original ideas. That is a bias in itself, as originality should naturally grow with the number of people alive. The best time to catch one in a million ideas should be when we are more and more billions, no ?
I was imprecise when using the term "creativity"--what I wanted to say is that the human experience is varied but not infinite. How many more Mission Impossible, special agent, whatever, can be perceived as "original"? The interesting part of the James Bond movie is who is the next Bond, the costume, maybe the Bond-girl or the location, but the plot is of very little interest; it is all already watched.
I have seen 2,000 kidnappings in movies, one million people dying in all sorts of ways (and never seen a shooting irl), I don't know how many affairs, failed marriages, aliens coming and going I have watched; it becomes increasingly difficult over time to propose plots and ways of narrating that don't evoke a "already seen" feeling.
After the peplum films of the 1950s, there was a hiatus in terms of ancient Rome settings. Then came Gladiator, Rome, and Spartacus, which were exciting. Now, when you watch Gladiator 2, it feels like you've seen it before, at least to me. Maybe if they stopped making these films for a couple of decades, they would become novel again.