Hacker News Reader

Comment by llamaimperative | Hacker News Reader

It seems you're mostly referring to positive-outcome errors, which is not really what I'm referring to (i.e. emergent behaviors, and especially maladaptive emergent behaviors). For what it's worth I enjoyed the article and am mostly taking issue with the implication of the last section:

> The fundamental truth remains: behind every line of code, every pixel, and every feature, there are human decisions shaping our experiences.

This is true, but does not mean that those human decisions intended to shape our experiences actually ended up shaping them in the intended way, especially in aggregate.

View on HN

Right, but they were still shaped by human decisions.

It reads to me like you're saying, "fret not, even mostly inscrutable things were shaped by human decisions." Is that right?

The more correct statement is: "You might need to fret even if inscrutable things were shaped by human decisions, because outcomes frequently end up unrelated or totally contrary to the human intent behind those decisions even in total absence of malice or even mistakes."

I think we're talking about your personal take after reading of the post? Maybe.

I specifically mention bugs and glitches, unintended consequences, happy accidents (unintended things that become intended by virtue of them being kept rather than discarded), unequal weight given to decisions, and more. Of course I don't use your exact wording, but it's all there. I try to keep it neutral, rather positive vs negative outcomes, just "decisions".

I have a feel for the tone llamaimperative is referencing. The choice to reflect from a more critical point of view has inspired further useful dialog in interpreting your contents for me personally. Good work, do better may be the deeper message here. In a nice way.

Thanks, I think! :)

I am a glass half full kind of guy so perhaps the text is a little more positive than neutral.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com