Algorithms are breaking how we think [video] | Hacker News Reader

Algorithms are breaking how we think [video]

youtube.com

82 pointsdkek11 comments

It's a great video, and a nice wakeup call for a lot of people online these days.

That said, there are a few things that need a bit more exploration here:

1. Context collapse (the idea of people finding conversations out of context and responding to posts not meant for them) feels like an issue created by a generation gap in how to use the internet. In the olden days, there was an expectation that any post you make online was fair game for responses from anyone and everyone. You posted on a forum or mailing list, and any rando there would respond. Period.

But with social media, I suspect there's a group of people who don't see things like this, and kinda think their conversations are more private than they actually are. So people aren't used to their conversations going viral and being interrupted by half the internet, since they're still used to the 'conversation in a pub/bar' model.

2. A lot of the media's issues aren't just because of clicks, but because they themselves have fallen victim to the same sort of algorithmic complacency. Journalists also have biased feeds showing issues that only their friends and colleagues care about, or which agree with their political views or subject matter interests. So they've gotten themselves into echo chambers that make mountains out of molehills, and their reporting reflects that.

Regarding 1, the key difference in those days was the barrier to entry. Sure, your post on the gardening forum was fair game for any user to respond to, but every user with that ability had to make an active decision to join a gardening forum. HAM radio hobbyists or political campaigners who don't have interest in gardening wouldn't gatecrash the party to respond to conversations out of context. On global, single-feed social media, you have to sign up, but then every bubble and subculture has the possibility of running into each other with an easy interface to join the conversation with no required context.

One change Alec has been in favour of is a setting to only allow followers to respond to a post. Sure, it takes 2 seconds, but it's that extra bit of friction that forces you to confront more context of who you're responding to.

I was considering posting this here, but I worry that it will trigger most of the folks who frequent this site, leading to more flamewars than valuable discussion.

Not for me. I watch a lot of the channel's content but used to the tech deep dives and historical context. This is a different kind of video--not my cup of tea. I only wish it didn't group things under "algorithms" as I'd expect the channel's viewers to be better informed. It does say "feed algorithm" later, but then also mentions LLM chatbots which have algorithms for training and evaluation, but that's not what makes the output--it's the model weights which is definitely not an algorithm.

I think in popular parlance "algorithm" has become an allegory to this nebulous entity who directs and influences our life. Alec is probably aware of the correct usage of the word algorithm but if you want to reach a broad audience without having to delve deep into details and long winded explanations I guess it's fine to use the popular meaning.

The whole channel is about long-winded explanations, LOL.

Yeah, but he apparently decided (and correctly so, IMO) that this explanation was long-winded enough without that added long-winded sub-explanation.

Combining the user input with the model weights to produce the output is still an algorithm.

If you're going to engage in pedantry, at least be technically correct.

I think Alec's use of "Algorithm" here is fair - in the overarching sense, this is about letting a machine pick what content we engage with instead of actively seeking out and choosing things. And, pedantically, an algorithm is defined as

> Algorithm: a process or set of rules to be followed in calculations or other problem-solving operations, especially by a computer.

I think that taking model weights and applying them input vectors following a sequence of steps to produce an output is absolutely an algorithm.

Funnily enough, I saw this video here before I saw it on YouTube even though I have been following Technology Connections for some time. I myself don't use the subscription feed often, because letting YouTube supply intellectual junk-food is easier than foraging for good information. Just like drinking a can of coke is easier than cooking a healthy meal.

I enjoyed the video (and ended up here because I was posting the same link).

I thought it was an insightful take. Videos on HN aren't always well received, especially longer ones, but I hope people will watch it.

I used to have a few Youtube channels bookmarked. Now (years later) if I'm bored I mostly go to their homepage, and it has a reasonable selection of things that I did bookmark or would have bookmarked if I'd known about them. The loss of control is still concerning.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com