>they're just another startup playing the growth hacking game
When is humanity going to start seeing some patches against these exploits? Is common sense still in beta?
When is humanity going to start seeing some patches against these exploits? Is common sense still in beta?
Lawyers have also led significant efforts to simplify the law. For example the American Bar Association has consistently created simple model statute frameworks that eventually are adopted.
Law is complex because society is complex.
"Simple" is not an accurate description of typical model legislation.
> Law is complex because society is complex.
Law is complex because it's an evolved system influenced by politics and corruption. The extent of its complexity is not intrinsic and much of it is specifically a defense mechanism against public understanding, because the public wouldn't support many things in the status quo if they understood the workings of them, and the people who do understand the workings but prefer the status quo use this to their advantage.
Try the example of drafting a standard apartment lease, over millions of transactions between landlords and tenants lots of edge cases emerge. So over time leases get more complicated. And then the law around interpretation and enforcement gets complicated.
Case law is full of politics. How do you think courts resolve the ambiguities? If there was an objective standard for how to do it then judges could be replaced by computer programs. Judges are used instead because rigorous and consistent application of rules would lead to outcomes that are politically inexpedient, so judges only apply the rules as written when politics fails to require something different.
> Try the example of drafting a standard apartment lease, over millions of transactions between landlords and tenants lots of edge cases emerge. So over time leases get more complicated.
This is just a facet of how contracts and lawyers work. The law creates defaults that a contractual agreement can override, so each time the law establishes a default that landlords don't like but are allowed to change, they add a new clause to the lease to turn it back the other way. What they really want is a simple one-liner that says all disputes the law allows to be resolved in favor of the landlord, will be. But politics doesn't allow them to get away with that because what they're doing would be too clear to the public, so politics requires them to achieve the result they want through an opacifying layer of complexity.
> because the public wouldn't support many things in the status quo if they understood the workings of them
Personally, I've observed the opposite more often: somebody feeds the public a clickbait-ey and manipulative "explanation" of how things work, and public becomes enraged without any real understanding of complexities and trade-offs of the system, as well as unintended consequences of proposed "fixes". It is the main reason why socialism is a thing.
The reason we have laws is to facilitate corruption? That seems like something we ought not to want.
> Personally, I've observed the opposite more often: somebody feeds the public a clickbait-ey and manipulative "explanation" of how things work, and public becomes enraged without any real understanding of complexities and trade-offs of the system, as well as unintended consequences of proposed "fixes".
That's the media. The government over-complicates things. The media over-simplifies things.
It has the same cause. People tune out when something becomes so complicated they can't understand it. So if they want people to pay attention to them, they over-simplify things. If they want people to ignore what they're doing, they over-complicate things.
No, the reason we have laws is because politics and corruption and crime is intristic to society. They are the reality of human condition which can't go away and we can't ignore, so we have to deal with it.
> That's the media. The government over-complicates things. The media over-simplifies things.
I had in mind the part of the "media" which "rebels against the media", Noam Chomskies and Michael Moores of the world.
Public corruption is intrinsic to government action, but the way you constrain it isn't by passing laws that limit the public, it's by limiting what laws can be passed by the government.
> I had in mind the part of the "media" which "rebels against the media", Noam Chomskies and Michael Moores of the world.
Chomsky probably isn't a great example of over-simplifying things. Many of his criticisms are legitimate.
But having a legitimate criticism of the status quo is a different thing than having a viable solution.
There are a lot of cases (to the point where I expect your average person sees dozens of them every day) where the media isn't just "over-simplifying"; they're presenting things that are specifically crafted to both
- Be factually correct
- Make the reader leave with an false understanding of the situation
This exact same thing happens with political campaigns.
Over-simplifications are false. They don't even meet the bar of being factually correct, whether because the proponent is willfully leaving something out or because they're ignorant themselves. It's not impossible for it to happen innocently, because people selling simplistic narratives often build a following even when they're true believers.
The thing you're talking about is selection bias. It's the thing assholes do when they want to lie to people but don't want to get sued for defamation. Whenever you discover someone using this modus operandi, delete them from your feed.
The term "snake oil salesman" has been around since the 1800s and that's effectively what most of these growth hackers are. I'm sure there are plenty of terms for the same practice of fraudulent marketing that predate that by centuries or even millennia. If you can hype people up enough about what you're selling and get them imagining how much better their live's will be using your product a certain number will buy into anything (in DNPs case, people imagine how much time and money they'll save on not using a lawyer).
I wouldn't expect that to ever change.
i think that's called "consequences" and it's the subject of the article you're commenting on
If so many people are willing to take the claim at face value, that suggests to me a general naivete and lack of understanding of AI out there that really needs to be fixed.
Aside from AI-related stuff, GGP mentioned "monthly subscriptions for services that most people need in a one-off manner". It's amazing to me that anyone would sign up for a monthly subscription to anything at all, without any consideration for whether they'd likely have a use for it every month.
Some people gain enough trust that once they start to exploit it, that there often isn’t a mechanism to apply consequences.
i.e. - politics
Common sense was relegated to a legacy feature status after "clout" and "fuck you got mine" were released.
It will not see further updates and will be sunset shortly. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Common sense has been deprecated. The system is just waiting for all of the modules with common sense preinstalled to sunset.
In America, it is legal to call your uncarbonated soft drink "vitamin water"!