Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Algorithms Have Already Gone Rogue

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 165 posts

Re: Algorithms Have Already Gone Rogue

#91

Post by mfoy_ »

s73ver_ wrote: post #49
mfoy_ wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An "algorithm" is simply a way to do a thing based on a set of rules to be followed... of course it's ambiguous. Getting scared of anything that generic is silly. Might as well fear the outside because anything can happen out there!

It's quite not, actually. Humans have the ability to see nuance in things. Computers currently don't. So you see things like Google banning developers for innocuous violations of the rules, whereas humans (assuming they were given enough time to properly review) wouldn't give 3 strikes just because they saw the same violation 3 times.

No, that really is the definition of an algorithm.

Algorithms and computers are NOT inextricably linked. Just because software often uses algorithms to define behaviour, doesn't mean algorithms cannot mean other things.

Re: Algorithms Have Already Gone Rogue

#92

Post by victorNicollet »

peterwwillis wrote: post #38

Have any of these tech "visionaries" (aka millionaires that we pretend have more insight than non-millionaires) considered that at the same time that we've increased our wealth we've also done more damage to our environment? If the cost of increased wealth is decreased habitat, will peak wealth result in the death of nature? Aside: people are still comparing AI to a machine that feels, and this is so stupid it boggle…

If a good algorithm optimizes for "quantity of paperclips produced", then it would recognize that "prevent humans from turning me off right now" is an optimal strategy. No fear of death involved, only pure rational optimization.

Re: Algorithms Have Already Gone Rogue

#94

Post by marcosdumay »

sharemywin wrote: post #36
marcosdumay wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I think you give people too little credit. Nobody can stand passively watching TV the entire day every day of their lives. But even if you aren't, why would it bother you? If other people want to waste their lives on a coach in front of the TV, what makes this wrong?

Assume that the one thing you do best for a job AI/computers come out and do better. How do you recover from that. Especially, if said AI owners decide you only get a barely livable stipend while they keep most of the profits.

Is it worthless (for you) doing just because a computer can do it better? If so, you may need to look for a better hobby... because after computers start doing everything better than we, all we do will be hobbies, not work.

Re: Algorithms Have Already Gone Rogue

#95

Post by sukilot »

jordigh wrote: post #3

Is this his new meme-hustling? "Algorithm"? https://thebaffler.com/salvos/the-meme-hustler I've never liked how Tim O'Reilly frames his discussion around vague terms like "open" which could mean participatory, transparent, available, or any other number of vague, feel-good terms. Now he seems to be calling "algorithm" things like economic models and government policy. These are widely disparate things, but by using v…

O'Reilly's in an interesting story. He became fabulously wealth by selling partly/mostly closed-source books about open-source software, in the short time-window when opens source existed while it was also possible to make money selling books (before Internet samizdat became cheap as free)

Re: Algorithms Have Already Gone Rogue

#96

Post by sukilot »

JustSomeNobody wrote: post #88
pdimitar wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can anyone explain why O'Reilly thinks nobody knew until recently that companies are biased toward part-time work in order to avoid providing benefits? How do you know he's thinking that? The way he was talking, I read him as "well it's obvious that nobody has stopped this behavior so it's fair to assume that not enough people noticed". Wouldn't you agree with that? > And here's one that's more subtle, so I don't b…

> How do you know he's thinking that? The way he was talking, I read him as "well it's obvious that nobody has stopped this behavior so it's fair to assume that not enough people noticed". Wouldn't you agree with that? I wouldn't. Anyone... everyone... who's worked retail _knows_ this. Anyone who's worked retail management knows this because when you ask to hire people you're told to hire part timers. Two part timers…

> you're told

> you're told

> It's simply unspoken.

Re: Algorithms Have Already Gone Rogue

#97

Post by saulrh »

nailer wrote: post #71
saulrh wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would Wired do that work when they can just recommend that you read the book? Why would you ask Wired to do that when you can just read the book? And why do you believe that you'd find that article any more satisfying than either this interview or the book?

> Why would Wired do that work when they can just recommend that you read the book? Why do you think it's a significant amount of work to simply quote an author, rather than adopt their viewpoint? > Why would you ask Wired to do that when you can just read the book? Justification is provided in the comment you're responding to. > And why do you believe that you'd find that article any more satisfying I'd find an arti…

> Why do you think it's a significant amount of work to simply quote an author, rather than adopt their viewpoint?

Because simply quoting the author won't suffice. The topic is sufficiently complex that a proper treatment requires an entire book chapter plus several preceding chapters of explanation. Paraphrasing or skimming won't work because then you'd accuse them of being even more biased.

This article gives a factual list of the topics the book covers, asks the book's author several questions about those topics, and directly quotes the book's author's responses. Yeah, that's marketing. Anything they could have written in that format would have necessarily been marketing. The only way not to support the book in that format would have been to not publish the article at all. Where do you see Wired "adopting O'Reilly's viewpoint"?

If you just want to never see anyone advertise anything, uh, okay? Every bit ever communicated is an opinion designed to accomplish some goal in the mind of another person. To escape this I suggest renouncing all interaction with other humans and moving to an uncontacted area in the depths of some rainforest.

Re: Algorithms Have Already Gone Rogue

#98

Post by coliveira »

tenaciousDaniel wrote: post #10
jordigh wrote: post #3

Is this his new meme-hustling? "Algorithm"? https://thebaffler.com/salvos/the-meme-hustler I've never liked how Tim O'Reilly frames his discussion around vague terms like "open" which could mean participatory, transparent, available, or any other number of vague, feel-good terms. Now he seems to be calling "algorithm" things like economic models and government policy. These are widely disparate things, but by using v…

That's been bothering me, the word "algorithm" is slowly becoming known as this ambiguously scary thing.

You should get used to that. When technology does harm, then the creators of this technology will point to the algorithm, the same way that Google talks about an algorithm as being a living thing. Of course, whenever they do good things, then the merit goes to the (human) creators of the algorithm -- in fact, to the founder(s) of the company that created the algorithm.

Re: Algorithms Have Already Gone Rogue

#99

Post by sukilot »

marcosdumay wrote: post #16
fiblye wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even assuming we end up with some society where robots do most of the labor and universal basic income becomes a thing, what do you think 90% of people will do? People need to be occupied, and the typical person isn't an inventor or artist. Furthermore, good luck making kids want to go to school when they see it as pointless since they can just get everything free from the robots while they watch TV. If you think obe…

Well, I think you give people too little credit. Nobody can stand passively watching TV the entire day every day of their lives. But even if you aren't, why would it bother you? If other people want to waste their lives on a coach in front of the TV, what makes this wrong?

> Nobody can stand passively watching TV the entire day every day of their lives.

People keep saying this but directly contradicts the observed experience of the vast majority of people.

Re: Algorithms Have Already Gone Rogue

#100

Post by nailer »

saulrh wrote: post #97
nailer wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why would Wired do that work when they can just recommend that you read the book? Why do you think it's a significant amount of work to simply quote an author, rather than adopt their viewpoint? > Why would you ask Wired to do that when you can just read the book? Justification is provided in the comment you're responding to. > And why do you believe that you'd find that article any more satisfying I'd find an arti…

> Why do you think it's a significant amount of work to simply quote an author, rather than adopt their viewpoint? Because simply quoting the author won't suffice. The topic is sufficiently complex that a proper treatment requires an entire book chapter plus several preceding chapters of explanation. Paraphrasing or skimming won't work because then you'd accuse them of being even more biased. This article gives a fac…

> Because simply quoting the author won't suffice.

It would establish a separate voice from OReillys and the publication that should be reporting on, not marketing, his new book.

> Where do you see Wired "adopting O'Reilly's viewpoint"?

Already answered multiple times in this thread.

> The topic is sufficiently complex that a proper treatment requires an entire book chapter

Or they could review it. 200 words. There's a lot of books reviewed that way, many far more complex than OReilly's.

Post reply on HN