Everything we like is a psyop?
techcrunch.com
techcrunch.com
Why is this guy talking like this? YOU are literally co-making internet full of fake!
It's worse if you read the context[0]:
Interviewer: What would you say to someone who’s freaked out by these ideas that we are talking about — who feels like they’re being manipulated by artists and marketers online?
Coren: Unfortunately, a lot of the internet is manipulation. Andrew(Chaotic Good co-founder) would always say everything on the internet is fake. All opinions are formed in the TikTok comments — which is a reminder to us of what we can help with. I don’t know if this will make anyone feel better, but a lot of what we do on the narrative side is controlling the discourse. Most people see a video or something about an album that came out, and that first comment they see becomes their opinion, even when they haven’t heard the whole album. It’s really important for us to make sure we’re ahead of it and controlling that narrative in the direction we want.
[0] https://www.billboard.com/pro/digital-marketers-secret-tacti...
That's multiple levels of "you're not the traffic, you are the traffic" right there.
Probably one of the most important heuristics to have in the age of self-help gurus and influencers. 99.999% of them haven't accomplished anything other than profiting off of desperate and gullible people.
I don't think this is necessarily true that manipulation is more emotional than it is logical. On the contrary, I believe that academics and well-educated people are very susceptible to it, especially the STEM crowd. All it takes to be manipulated is someone you trust and who is like you, who is in the same peer group and who speaks the same language as you. It makes no difference whether language is “emotional” or “logical”; enough scientists have reasoned themselves into the most ridiculous bullshit and it were mostly men.
This is not true, in my experience. Men are just as, if not more, emotional and impulsive. Most women I know think way further ahead than the men I know, and improvise much less often. The idea that men are the rational ones is just a silly fantasy to make men feel better, I would argue. Rationality is much more correlated with socio-economic status than gender, I would bet.
There is a lack of emotional health across genders, but on average, I think women are further along than men, simply because they're able to recognize that they are emotional beings much more often than men are.
At a macro scale men and women often have different interests. They often cluster around different skillsets because their interests channel them into different activities. But emotional self-awareness isn't an activity, it's an aptitude that fundamentally both men and women exercise (or don't exercise) with similar frequency in day-to-day life. But because women tend to pursue more interpersonal relationships and discussions, they are more adept at the vocabulary, the way men know the vocabulary and rules around football. But, again, it doesn't follow that talking about something makes one more skilled at it. You can juggle tons of relationships and engage in endless discourse about emotional and mental health without having much if any meaningful emotional self-awareness. People with vulnerable-type NPD do this, and at the extreme end the condition is basically predicated on lacking the capacity for a self-awareness most other people, including isolated men, take for granted.
Relatedly, after adjusting for income and social status, it's notable that not even psychologists and therapists have significantly lower divorce rates. That really highlights in my mind that not even an in-depth, systematic, rigorous study of something necessarily makes one more adept at it's exercise, nor, apparently, more likely to meaningfully pursue and develop the skill. Though, presumably they're more adept at judging and analyzing others' emotional awareness and skill given it's the skill they actually apply in their occupation.
I'm a man who has worked on my own emotional health very intentionally as an adult. I've found there are lots of ways to understand and engage with your own emotions, and they can seem contradictory if you're not thinking experientially.
But I've never found someone who behaves with high emotional awareness that doesn't have any language for describing their experiences. They can talk about it very differently from other people. There is a huge multidimensional possibility space for that.
There's potential selection bias here, though. It's more difficult to identify people high in self-awareness who aren't inclined to discuss their own emotional experiences, unless you happen to have frequent, close interactions with them. It's like when people assume learning languages is easy based on their experience meeting people from around the world who speak their language. But you're much less likely to interact with immigrants and travelers who don't speak your own language, if only because those people aren't inclined to engage with people with whom they can't or aren't interested in communicating.
My experience (often unfortunate) tells me that there are many behaviors that masquerade as self-awareness and other reflections of inner state, but don't actually reflect what we presume it does. For example, the stereotype is that women are naturally more nurturing. Nurturing is a concept that encompasses many dimensions, and it conflates internal motivations and feelings with outward behaviors and practice. We presume nurturing implies empathy and selflessness, but there are of mothers who by all appearances (and in fact) are great nurturers, but whose internal mental experience is bereft of those qualities. They're good nurturers because ultimately we can only judge nurturing by the outcome, and it's easy to presume a naturally patient person adept at applying good parenting practices possess the inner state we associate with nurturing. Even children of such people may not realize this, depending on their own capacity for emotional discernment.
Concepts like empathy, guilt, etc, are tricky. Is a person quick to apologize driven by guilty feelings and concern for other's internal state, or are they merely adept and eager at identifying social cues and applying social norms?
In principle women could be, as a group, more likely to possess a greater capacity for and to develop self-awareness. But history and feminism and racism tells me to be highly skeptical of something like this. While biologically it's possible (and I wouldn't at all be surprised), it's not self-evident to me that self-awareness is any more valuable a skill evolutionarily for women than for men, just like intelligence isn't likely to be more valuable a skill for some ethnic groups over another. For example, generally speaking, and from an evolutionary perspective, analytical intelligence is no less an asset for a group performing less stereotypically intellectual activities (e.g. hunting) than for a group centered around stereotypically intellectual activities (e.g. accounting).
If you start from a position of assuming objectivity, you are putty in the hands of anyone who "tells it like it is"
If you're referring to the quote from OP's post, "I don't know if this will make anyone feel better" isn't really appealing to empathy at all, it's basically just preemptively acknowledging what he said may sound bad and so tries to soften it a bit.
It's a rhetorical cliche that has very little to do with anyone's actual feelings.
They're certainly manipulating people with their astroturfing but via slop content like video game playthroughs for rap songs so their actual strategy doesn't seem to uniquely rely on emotional manipulation either. Just following content trends whatever they may be.
Weaponizing "empathy" just seems like a complete red herring that makes for an irrelevant tangent in this context.
Correspondingly, if you are beginning the project, you should not make choices that will result in failure.
And if the moment's gone, well... that's the way it goes. That's not the same as "choosing to fail."
They won’t come, because they won’t even know about it. A more accurate aphorism would have been “if you build it and tell everyone about it, some of them might come.”
Humans probably don’t want the site to succeed, because they mostly don’t know it exists.
How much SEO happens here on HN? How much do they spend to tell everyone about it? I'm guessing: Not much; maybe zero.
But people come here, anyway.
(That doesn't mean that it's capable of independently sustaining itself, but people do show up.)
You could see every YCombinator investment as a kind of sidelong marketing for HN.
Telling everyone about it is only necessary if you're indistinguishable from 100 different takes on the same thing, and trying to win a shouting match (this includes hurrying to shout the world down before competitors get a chance).
But as the saying goes, you are not in traffic - you are the traffic. The reason you need to shout is because of people like you shouting.
And I know how to do SEO and why. And I'm just not interested. "Success" for me... well, I mean, I'd love to retire today based on the brazilians of dollars some mogul hands me for the IP behind the site, but, uh, that's not what it's for. SEO at the service layer? Sure, it has a mode for the bots, it tries to make scanning easy for the machines. But at the content level... nah, I have been watching the world tune information - one aspect of the psyop the OP talked about - for decades, and I can't bring myself to do it.
I hope you're right. Not for my own sake, but for everyone's. I'm trying to do what I can to put stuff worth reading out there - and whether it's worth reading or not isn't actually mine to judge; if I make it "worth reading" by SEO terms, it's not actually worth reading all that much, being neutered and hedged to the point of milquetoast oblivion.
IMO.
Why is this every 3rd comment on this site? Every single post has multiple comments that are
"I hate that, here's my solution"
HN comments have always been like that, or rather "here's my approach to circumvent that annoyance".
What's your alternative? I prefer that style over comments that stop already at "I hate that", as curiosity should be more than an expression of a dismissive opinion.
P.S. Not necessarily implying that the grandparent resorted to that.
Since 2023 I always check the creation date of a user before I click on any link in their comment.
You wish. It is becoming harder every day to find genuine comments or technical insights at the top of HN sections instead of blind love/hate for trendy topics.
Even among the "genuine" comments most of them are just people spewing things because the monkey brain has determined that it likes it when the number in the top right goes up and has figured out what kind of things to spew to make it go up (dare I say encouraging this state of affairs is the reason some platforms choose to keep score in such a manner).
Does it really matter whether you're reading something written by an AI shill, a human shill or a human (or AI) who's repeating the shillery? You're being shilled at all the same.
Art as expression, not as market campaigns, will still capture our imaginations - that's more my driving force than trying to sell more hotdogs.
> How slowly one advances in a boat that does not float along with the stream in a specific direction! How much easier it is when one can connect with the work of great predecessors whose value is not doubted by anyone. A personal experiment, a construction whose foundations one must dig himself and whose walls one must erect himself, runs a real risk of becoming a humble hovel. But perhaps one prefers to live there rather than in a palace that has been built by others. (Escher on Escher – Exploring the Infinite)
The font for the headlines also looks 'off' to me. Letters too close together maybe
BCN actually has multiple UIs for it, although I've been concentrating on the content rather than the front-ends - I'm not a front-end guy, so my UIs tend to be impenetrable. The model works. If it's my implementation the other front ends will suck from a UX perspective, because I don't see the UI the same way most people do (there are reasons, they're not important, bottom line is that I avoid UI.)
What would YOU suggest for a UI? I'm very much curious, because I would LOVE for the UI to sing and I would have no idea how to make that happen.
Not sure your reply was meant for me but: just make as much as static as possible
Looking at your site, you have a mission statement in your About page that roughly says "scrape other sources for anything relevant and interesting." Nothing about staffing, who you are, who your editors are, whether you even have editors. Every story seems to have the byline "DREAMREAL," which doesn't sound like a person.
It doesn't seem to me like you're interested in running a news org. It seems like you're dissatisfied with your ability to find things interesting to you in a single place and are trying to scratch that itch, probably in a mostly-automated way. I can sympathize with that, but a personal knowledge base with outgoing links to the original sources isn't a news org. By all means, share it. Maybe six other people in the world have exactly the same interests you do, but this is a far cry from journalism and you probably shouldn't frame it that way.
The site's actually not the main focus - the site's still being developed. The hardest thing about TheServerSide back in the day wasn't the writing or curating - although curation is hard if you're not just echoing press releases or READMEs - it was discovery.
Slashdot, freshmeat, RSS, IRC back then... all just being watched and participated in (I'm an actual developer first, after all) - talking to and with and watching ALL THE SOURCES. I had an OPML to die for, man! ... and I had to read it all, and filter it all, and ignore it when people talked about stuff that readers wouldn't care about.
So BCN's actually an infobot that happens to feed that discovery, in part - it's actually an information stream that yields factoids (infobot, woo!) and other services around that, and part of that yield is information about what's happening, so it HAS an RSS reader, it has github webhooks, it has everything I can think of as input streams, not as a comb filter but just as an information hub that can contain comb filters.
Yeah, there's no marketing; I'm no marketer. Don't want to be. And the presentation of the model is confusing, because I'm no marketer and because the readers don't and really shouldn't care, if it works. And the site's "in process" anyway - I mean, yeesh, it only has 50 posts so far! I'm working on getting there.
And "dreamreal" is a person - it's me. That's the IRC handle I've used for years, and that's actually one of the admin identities for me the bot had first, and it stuck. Easy to change, but honestly, it's not about me and shouldn't be.
But you're not wrong in the slightest.
ETA: it hit me after I wrote this comment that I was posting it under a name derived from my real name, to defend the use of "dreamreal" on the site to someone who posted THEIR OWN comment under "nonameiguess" - which would be an odd name to have in real life. :D
So it's a problem: I can "hand write it" and have you say "mein Gott, who came up with THIS rubbish? Are they blind? Are they trying to blind US?" or I can have an AI spin something up that looks fairly bland and normalish, but fulfills the specifications I require, and have users go "this looks like a blog that pretty much anyone would write," except the content was always meant to be the differentiator.
And the UI is actually designed to be pluggable, anyway; what I work on is the backend REST services, and the UI goes through those services for all data - it has no access to the underlying datastreams, at all. Everything goes through https://api.bytecode.news, and the intent was that if someone was an awesome UI coder and wanted to show their stuff, they'd write their UI using CoolThing and I'd put it into the system at coolthing.bytecode.news, and if it totally dominated the "normal UI" I'd promote that to the default UI and just leave the other one out there as a reference (the UI you see is also hosted at https://nextjs.bytecode.news, as the "canonical url" for that implementation.)
That way, if someone's going "ooo I could make Struts sing with this" for some reason, well, the API endpoints are published with OpenAPI; go for it. Show the world.
The UI was always secondary to the concepts that drive the information system, and the content was meant to be more important than how the content looked. I'd rather deliver information than flash.
Whether that's accomplished with LLM tools or not
If you have ideas about what a proper UX would look like, I'm all ... eyes? ears? UX is not my thing and I am willing to consider breaking the molds to make something more awesomer if I can.
Not trying to be elitist - like what you like. I just really feel like little artists need the support. Plus, it feels like there is a bit more satisfying agency and fate in looking for new things rather than being fed them.
Most of the CDs were unsurprisingly stuff that was pretty common, but I would occasionally find a few artists that I had never heard of that I ended up really liking, like "Hoss" by Lagwagon.
I haven't done this in awhile, but I might do it again soonish. It was fun digging through all the CDs to find stuff I ended up actually liking.
You have to be willing to sift through junk. Which I think is hard for many to accept. However, the algorithms are often giving you junk anyway. Kind of no way around it.
Still, in that 300, there was about ~30 albums that I hadn't hear of that I ended up really liking.
Took awhile to sift through them all, which is why I haven't done it again, but it was a fun experiment all the same.
Don't confuse the people playing the marketing game to try to win big with the whole world out there.
(On a totally unrelated note, calling your potentially-shady marketing firm "Chaotic Good" is genius and pretty funny.)
"There are only two ways to find good new music - listen to a lot of bad new music, or outsource your listening choices to someone else - and the second doesn't protect you against the first."
Outsourcing your listening choices can look like lots of different things: that friend who goes to lots of concerts and always has an amazing new band they've heard recently, radio DJs, algorithmic suggestions like Pandora or Spotify, the Billboard Top 100, your local bar's live band choices, the Grammy Awards, going to clubs where DJs play new music, etc - but ultimately they come down to the same thing, letting someone else decide what you listen to.
And while my pithy version mentions "bad new music", included in there is anything which is not "good new music", including lots of mediocre or inoffensive stuff which doesn't rise to the level of being "good".
I first thought about it in the context of music, as I was looking for new songs to choreograph to, but it's true of discovering any new products where the quality is a matter of taste or subjective assessment.
- Want to find new food you like? You either eat lots of weird foods, or you find someone (a friend, a food blogger, the NYT food reviews, your mum, anyone) to recommend you try something they've discovered.
- Want to read a good new book? Either pick up random books, most of which will be trash, until you find something you like, or find someone to filter down the books (a small bookshop which carefully curates its titles, a library's recommended reading list, the best sellers lists, Oprah's book club, etc).
- New TV shows? Watch many bad shows until you find a good one, or wait for recommendations or awards nights.
- Restaurants, clothing designers, shopping malls, Youtube channels, content creators, movies, directors, websites, etc - the story is the same.
The only places where this does not apply, is in contexts which have objective measures which can be used as filters: if you want a new monitor, you can go to any store and filter or sort the options they have by objective measures like "display size", "resolution", "response time", "weight", "connectivity" etc, and find new products which meet the criteria. This is still dependent on someone to go and collate the information about all the products, but you are not forced to try lots of incorrectly-sized monitors to find one which optimises your preferences. Similar for microcontrollers, CPUs, car trailers, light bulbs, etc.
But even things with objective measures often have subjective qualities which have to be assessed - you can filter laptops on weight, RAM, clock speed, and storage, but how it feels to hold, whether the keys have a nice feel, whether the machine overheats too quickly - so you're often back to the original observation on these matters too.
Or like: one time I listened to a bunch of new music I had dug up and wasn't sure there was anything I liked. Two days later, I had a song in my head. Turned out to be one of the ones I had listened to. But I had to listen to everything all over again to find it! ദി(ㅠ﹏ㅠ) Glad I did - there were other gems in there.
Anyway, great quote.
The alternative is to listen to less filtered/signalless stuff (which isn't hard - bandcamp new releases lists (or my bandhiking app) or even their trending charts which seem to be unpopular enough that it's not entirely controlled by marketing (lots of unlistenable stuff makes it onto the chart) and meet/hang out with other people who do the same for a minor filtering pass.
Some of it will suck.
Those of us who care about an interest for the sake of that interest, are called nerds.
I live in a city where the bands you speak of get pushed further and further away from the downtown core. They're literally in the 'burbs now. It's counter-productive, but it seems downtown is more concerned with restaurants than other forms of entertainment these days.
The more disturbing implication is that it's not just "everything on the internet" is fake so much as the whole surrounding culture of consumerist societies - and that possibly every thought you have ever had and will have is a product of these influences.
Mark Fisher is a good read on whether we're even capable of comprehending what it would mean to live outside such a system at this point.
Obligatory "Cerulean Top" clip:
I can’t remember seeing any marketing about the sequel, I don’t use any app or service that would have told me it was upcoming or released, and I block ads; but it feels too enormous a coincidence for me to discount the idea that I had been primed to look it up.
IOW, maybe, it’s easier to find a needle in a haystack if you have a magnet (brain with pattern recognition) and live in a blizzard of haystacks (online today).
Of course I highly doubt that's what actually happening here, but the idea is unpleasant. I hate advertising, I don't want it messing with real interactions with other humans. I'm not sure how to express the idea, it's like its so pervasive I'm thinking about it when its not even present.
- The sequel came out a bit less than 2 years after the first book, which is fairly typical. It means it is a likely time to think "what about the sequel?"
- Doctor appointments and book releases both tend to happen on tuesdays. Especially book releases, so it is possible that you tend to think more about books on tuesdays
- It is possible to think about the book more than once without realizing it, maybe even inquery about the sequel without realizing it, and because the result is negative and unimportant, it is easy to forget. It is not uncommon for me to search something just to find it in my history, completely forgotten
I would put the likelihood of something like that happening by accident to about 1/100, the "noticeable but not memorable" kind, such as meeting the same person twice in a day in a different context, or arriving at a highly coveted parking spot just as the previous guy is leaving.
I (after a few beers) found myself idly wondering about an electric folk band I hadn't seen or heard of for a good ten years, and looked them up to see if they were doing a new album or tour.
They'd played a final farewell gig the week before :/
Preferences and desires have to be the end of some causal DAG with entrypoints from the world outside of your own mind one way or another. Whether or not we're marketers or have any financial interest in the popularity of specific cultural artifacts, we all generally do things like evangelize our favorite stuff to friends and instill values and a love of similar things to our kids. It's overly cynical to have comments like this responded to as if any and all external influences are nefarious and inauthentic. What we want is for people to share the things they actually love rather than bullshit they know is bullshit but have been paid to shill.
I think of the fact I've been listening to Donna Summer so much for the past couple months. I know why it is. I grew up loving disco music and watching Alysa Liu win the figure skating gold medal performing to Macarthur Park reminded me of that love, something I haven't given much attention to in nearly 30 years. It's not "better" than anything else I'd been listening to in the past few years, but it's a lot more fun to sing thanks to 70s idols like Donna largely coming from a gospel background.
Going back a link, I'm reasonably sure Alysa, a 20 year-old who very likely did not grow up listening to disco music, probably picked this as her song for the season because of Beetlejuice Beetlejuice and I've read Tim Burton's explanation of how the song got into the movie. He has a jukebox in his house and was listening to the Richard Harris original version of this song, which is one of the more ridiculous pop songs to ever get recorded, but full of wild changes in tone and a very long runtime that lended itself well to an extended wedding sequence interrupted by a police raid. The Donna Summer version playing over the credits is largely for contrast. I don't think Tim Burton or anyone else was motivated by wanting to boost the royalty fees going to Richard Harris and Donna Summer, who have been dead for 24 and 14 years, respectively.
It's quite possible you saw something somewhere about it several days if not weeks or months previously and naturally didn't consciously register it. Advertisements are designed to work this way and the memory is a wonderful thing.
It's dangerous because it's manipulative, it removes agency from ourselves and its addictive to the marketeers. It hurts our identity to admit we are manipulated so psychologically we play along with the manipulation and deny being weakened (and they know this).
If I can sell you a book and make you think it's entirely your own choice then my marketing has been incredibly successful.
Or it may not be doing what marketeers and advertising agencies actually planned to happen and it could be just random coincidence.
Here it is.
I recall a story of a digital marketing team using Google sponsored link clicks as a metric for how well their stuff was working. Turns out that people just switched to clicking the sponsored link instead of the same link on regular Google results. The only thing achieved here was that the marketing team gave some money to Google.
I have never been even close to anything marketing related, but I'd assume that measuring its impact is highly non-trivial in the statistical sense. Also, only the companies selling marketing even have access to the relevant metrics and they have an incentive to exaggerate the results (sometimes maybe even internally).
This seems like something that should be regulated. The cell phone companies can identify these customers/devices easily enough.
Because once you answer that question for yourself, you'll hopefully care a lot less about the "many of good sides".
They turn everyone elses experiences to shit just so they can have more money.
If you're curious though: https://rumble.com/v5495j6-matthew-north-psyop-alex-jones-is...
Who hasn’t fallen prey to marketing and propaganda on social media?
I think the point of the bit though is to aggressively point out that advertising corrupts our world for their benefit and if advertisers or marketers had a soul they'd realise they were actively making the world worse and move to a different industry. Meaning the only ones the message is for are sociopaths that know what they're doing and don't care.
So, for people like me, the things we will listen to are the things you can get in front of us. I suspect there are a lot of others like me. The threshold for good is not very high for us so it's a matter of distribution. Of the numerous things we will deem good, what can you put in front of us? In a sense, I use platforms for their communities selection effects.
Reddit's /r/books has a top scroller with book titles on it. Right now are Mieville's Kraken, Ancillary Sword by Ann Leckie, The Names by Knapp, and Lolita by Nabokov, and so on. Of the times I've picked from the top scroller I've been pleased. The guys running that site are good taste makers for me even if they're paid for it.
If Chaotic Good breaks that pattern and pays them to put things I don't like, I will stop using the platform for selection. Such is life and I'm fine with it. But if they cross my threshold of good, I don't mind so much that in the frothing foam of artists some are elevated by their agents to slightly greater heights than others. The psyop is perfectly okay.
Is it?
You really don't mind if everything that gets put in front of you is controlled?
What if the people who talk about class war, the people who speak up about US and Israeli terror and torture and atrocities, the people who speak up for the voiceless are never/very rarely permitted to surface by the 'tastemaker' algorithm's controller?
Because it sure seems like that's at least partly the case today, and rapidly getting worse.
I just hate the fact that I feel jaded and cynical about this as my default position.
I've commented on this before, but I strongly suspect much of the narrative around AI is being formed with strong inputs from these patterns. What's your basis for thinking that codex is best for planning, but opus is best for implementing? Is it based on extensive experimentation and first hand experience in a non-deterministic environment, or is it that you saw a large number of people on HN and X say that?
Why was the dominant narrative on cursor coming within spitting distance of opus with a MUCH smaller team and less capital "LOL THEY USED KIMI!!" instead of "wow, open source models + a bit of RLHF training and some clever context management got within spitting distance of the industry giant and way cheaper"? The latter sentiment is a whole lot more damaging for a company eyeing an IPO with existing investors with very deep pockets.
Think simonw and his pelicans... but there are lesser known trustworthy voices as well. It just takes some time to find them for a given area of interest.
Also bring back blogrolls.
As soon as they get popular enough they'll be approached with offers to shill in exchange for huge piles of money. That's the entire point of "influencers". Trusted people being turned into secret advertisers and billboards.
The hard thing is finding which ones are, and which ones aren't.
I rely on a web of trust. When I see another new hot AI trend, I check it against whether any of the people I've followed via RSS or manually curated on Twitter, Mastodon, etc (many of whom I met IRL) have said anything about it.
There's still a an undercurrent of people blogging and posting and chatting who are trustworthy and haven't sold their soul to marketing. Or at least are clear when they say things that are marketing.
But it is ever harder to find those voices, especially if you're new to an industry.
It's almost a bit like AI speak. The shills will all have very similar sounding content. They'll all hit on the same (ad copy) points. They might mix in a few negative tidbits, but generally speaking you'll catch them all praising the same wizbang features.
Mkbhd is my favorite baseline shill. He practically just reads the product sheet. You know if he says it, it was probably given to him by the person paying for the review and, indeed, you can find the points he brings up echoed in other people's reviews.
On the flip side, I generally trust Gamers Nexus to not shill. Primarily because their lack of playing ball has actually hurt their access.
I've enjoyed your videos as well. They don't come off as a shill particularly because there's a number of products where the negative points you've put out have been strong enough to actually discourage a purchase. They haven't been weak "The colors could pop more".
Brandolini’s law strikes again: you really have to pay attention to catch a shill. 99% of the time when you’re not paying attention and intentionally shopping for a particular product is when they get you.
Click on a shill video in youtube and you'll have 20 identical videos on the same topic.
But also, advertisers are smart and you have to assume they know you are on the lookout for a shill. I have to assume the why shilling works will continue to evolve as the way to detect shilling evolves.
I expect we'll end up with something like this in the future [1].
It makes sense they'd be harder to find, I imagine there are more opportunities to make money by selling your soul than by offering honest review, and people with large investments have large incentives to dilute signal in their favor.
It's sad that so many platforms let it happen, but it makes sense when the users aren't the ones paying the bills. I'm immensely grateful for those that resist though, and if I were a religious person I would nominate them for sainthood or reincarnation or at least a plaque on a nice park bench somewhere.
But then I think maybe not really? Granted, I'm not orchestrating 100 Agents doing overnight work. But relating this to your point, if the CC-camp + HN hadn't proclaimed otherwise, I would have no idea what breakthrough CC+Opus made. (Cursor was first with plan mode right?)
This is just the old "surely nobody actually likes Lady Gaga, all the people I actually know think her stuff sucks, it's just all bought and paid for" reasoning trap all over again...
If someone is clear about offering an anecdote, it's dishonest to pretend as if they were making a real and reasoned argument.
It’s existed for a long time, is quite good, and it is under-marketed (ironic for this thread).
(Double-ironic disclosure… I work for Cursor. If you have ideas to make agent better hmu)
So much so that i've yet to invest in CC. Finally downloaded the desktop app but use it exclusively for chat and cowork.
Cursor's purgatory UX is what'll finally get me to invest in CC and codex. Not model performance.
I do think there's a caveat that it's pretty standard nextjs with rails api.
edit: found your blog post about your experience, i'll read it! https://www.stavros.io/posts/how-i-write-software-with-llms/
edit2: maybe it's because i spend a lot of time being clear with small and surgical asks after doing purely thought exploring prompts to confirm and home in on approaches. At the point I hit build or do Agent mode, Composer is mostly always spot on.
with Opus (haven't tried) maybe people are doing large-scale multi phase and single shot prompts that trigger a swarm of sub agents?
This means that marketing budgets run everything, from the morning news talk to the evening nightly news, and everything between, is carefully crafted to keep you watching those commercials. On the internet, everything is trying to filter you into conversions or purchases, or steal your identity and cut out the middleman.
PBS and NPR like to say they're advertiser free but they aren't, they just call it "underwriting", and it entails the same wariness over bucking the advertiser's wishes. sorry, underwriters wishes.
edit to add a solution
the solution is value for value. You publish, if people like your stuff, you tell them to contribute time, talent, or treasure to your product, be it a youtube channel, a podcast, or even an e-zine (remember those...)
Then again, I'm sure some loopholes would be found.
if it truly is life altering, and most people or everyone needs it, that's why we have a government. note i said needs it. No one needs to know about the latest transformers movie coming out in 6 months. there are websites dedicated to calendars for events and the like, you can just subscribe there if you care about transformers.
the very idea that most people just walk around all day going "i wonder what i should eat... I'm lovin' it!" because they heard a mcdonalds commercial is... ludicrous.
for myself, literally the only advertising that works on me is word of mouth. and not like, influencers or celebrities, but my friends, co-workers and associates, my neighbors, my in laws; people i trust.
edit: don't get me wrong here, i am sure that there are lots of research papers, studies - longitudinal or otherwise - about "returns on marketing investment." Pepsi and Coca Cola spend $4,000,000,000 each on advertising (2024), is that netting them more than 4 billion each in new sales? Recurring sales? I don't get it, it just feels like they're taking unhealthy addicts' money and setting it on fire to wow other addicts.
and don't get me started on native advertising.
> We estimated, based on some fairly informal math, that there were about 5000 stores on the Web. We got one paper to print this number, which seemed neutral enough. But once this "fact" was out there in print, we could quote it to other publications, and claim that with 1000 users we had 20% of the online store market.
I have this growing belief that what's wrong with America is that we've tossed a great deal of virtue (both personal and public) into the woodchipper, using a lot of euphemisms like "marketing" or "puffery". And the rot is not in any way confined to marketing - it's just that marketing is a very obvious example of it. The rot has made its way into education, relationships, entertainment, governance, infrastructure, what used to be called 'news', and on and on.
We collectively gaslight ourselves to avoid dealing with the reality that we're constantly defecating in our own minds, contaminating ourselves with patterns of thought and action that are antithetical to our own continued well-being as individuals and collectives. To borrow a word from Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, we are poisoning the noosphere.
There is someone called Peter Ralston; on YouTube there's a few videos of him and in one bit from an interview he starts on honesty. "Honesty", he says, "is a skill most people don't appreciate". I was really impressed by that "is a skill" qualification. Never thought about it this way. But yes, it is a skill. First you learn it and then it changes you.
This comes up often when bad actors promote the meme "everything is securities fraud". In reality, all cases that they're talking about are instances of _blatant lying_, but they attempt to normalize this even further than it already has been. Effectively saying "it's impossible to run a company and not lie at every possible opportunity!".
It doesn't make any sense and that's because it's a lie.
curating for trust and expertise and diversity of opinion
And how do we know that? How do we know Cursor is "withing spitting distance of opus" (whatever it means)?
Let me guess:
> that you saw a large number of people on HN and X say that
"The AI talks down to me like Reddit because it's trained on Reddit" has been a running joke/quip/gripe on the "less refined" parts of the internet for awhile now.
All the money in the world can't actually turn a turd into a market leader.
If you have a good product you have to play the marketing game to avoid getting left behind. If you have a bad product you try to play it and you still don't get picked up. (This last bit is where things usually turn into an argument about "no, obviously [this thing I don't like] is bad and is only popular because of the marketing", which assumes taste is more universal than it is.)
Came here to say this - I have always been extremely cautious and assumed most things online were just marketing tactics. But I never realize how far and how strategic some of these campaigns are.
I’ve recently started really getting my hands dirty with marketing for an app I’m building and the things I’ve learned in the past year have made me questions many of my views on things. At some point you realize that it’s all marketing or some form of effort to exert influence.
A good book somewhat related to this is Attention Merchants
This comment is interesting because you took a narrative that was being pushed and marketed (Cursor was close to Opus) and accepted it as the ground truth.
The dominant narrative I saw around that, at least in my bubbles, was disappointment when they actually tried it and discovered it was not, in fact, close to Opus.
My own experience was relatively similar, good, but with a notable gap that went beyond cherrypicked benchmarks.
I for one work on an agentic product where we use all 3 of the major frontier models. The models absolutely have preferences and "personality" that lead to different characteristics.
In my eyes:
* Gemini - consistently the best at pure reasoning and tunability. Flash models are particularly good at latency sensitive small-scale reasoning. The tradeoff is they struggle with some basic behavior, like tool calling.
* Claude - consistently good at long standing sessions. Opus may or may not be the best model, but it was the first model that crossed the "holy shit" threshold. I understand it's quirks/nuances and it's consistently solid. It's the best for me because I've learn how to be incredibly effective with it.
* ChatGPT - Probably really good, but probably not worth switching from Claude. Last time I used their frontier model, it was a bit random. It would have moments of brilliance immediately followed by falling flat on it's face.
It is obvious in retrospect but difficult to see in the moment
"Fewer than 2 in 10 teens can correctly distinguish between news, advertisement, opinion and entertainment" https://newslit.org/news-and-research/news-literacy-in-ameri...
"82 percent of middle school students couldn't tell the difference between sponsored articles and real news stories.
Out of the Stanford college students that were tested, more than 80 percent couldn't identify biased content from independent news sources supported by groups like lobbying firms as being less reliable than a mainstream news source." https://universe.byu.edu/2018/02/09/studies-show-lack-media-...
Yes, exactly this. It is extremely difficult to get attention these days, no matter how good your offering.
If they sell tickets at the door, that means they may not be in one of the big ticketing monopolies. Going for bands/artists you have never heard of will give you a mixed bag, sure, but (1) it will be your mixed bag, (2) you support the ecosystem that creates new bands and (3) it is much more authentic and personal, because it is usally also smaller.
I agree it's old, but I think it's reached a new high with short-form content. Now that people don't subscribe to creators they like but rather get an algorithmic feed it's much harder to detect astroturfing.
Like the articles says, these creators are easily identifiable, they typically create multiple videos a day about the same topic. But for the platform that doesn't matter.
The complexity of being popular increases as the complexity of the environment increase. I'm started to think, maybe this is an unavoidable stage in the development.
Today's Internet is filled with high quality (at least engagement wise) content which the platforms are trying to promote to retain users. These content could occupy the free time of the user, after a certain time threshold has reached, they stops watching the platform all together.
This creates some competitiveness, unless you are also doing something highly optimized (for example, "hack the algorithm"), your effort may gone unnoticed, short-noticed or delayed-noticed, and that could lead to commercial failure.
The "psyop" is new the game rule simply because it should give you a chance to compete against other established content.
People paying UGC creators to have ads is nothing new. Posting en masse to fool the algo is, but there's alwasy been bot farms.
And before that there's still the trick of getting published by a low rated news org, then letting journalist at a more reputable organization let them know of this trending news. And so on til you end up in the NYT. FYI this works even when you actually bought placement for those low quality placements
On the upside, the product/service needs to be good if you want to gain traction AND staying power. Psyops are cheap tricks, if your product sucks, then there's no word of mouth and you can't scale regardless of how many reviews you botted.
Drake,Katseye, etc. aren't doing doing well becuase they're doing cheap marketing techniques, they're doing well b/c they have a loyal audience and make good music.
We are only aware of the stuff that our devices show to us; yet the vastness of the internet creates a false sense that we know everything. This dual reality (deep reality vs the surface reality we see) creates the feeling of being in a simulation; we have a feeling that there's another reality beyond our simulation. We implicitly trust the algorithms to do the curation for us, personalized to our tastes, but the algorithms are heavily biased towards popular content, ideas and people. It's a tiny subset of reality that's highly manipulated and fake. The less critically-minded you are, the smaller but more pleasant your world is (until you reach a certain point?).
We have hype leading adoption, which funds development capacity which leads to slight improvements, which lead to consolidation of hype... But there exist alternatives that are 10x better from the beginning but lacking the hype component altogether and those things appear to not exist. Value creators are often terrible at marketing. It's hard to sell to people who are inside the simulation when you are outside of it because you don't speak the same language.
The contrast between form vs substance has reached comically absurd levels and sadly, the clear winner is form.
To really get the full picture, you almost have to already know all the key information. At best, AI/LLMs can give you confirmation of your existing knowledge with additional supporting data... But even that's under attack; there are narratives trying to discredit the objectivity of LLMs by saying that they are programmed to agree with you for engagement... That's a persuasive narrative, especially in the age of fake news, but I really hope we ignore these narratives; we just have to observe that LLMs do in fact push back effectively when you're wrong! You can't make an LLM agree with you on facts that are wrong no matter how many times or how many ways you repeat them. The only wiggle-room is in terms of 'importance' or 'relevance', not facts.
Critical thinking (e.g. poking holes in otherwise perfectly satisfying explanations) is now more important than ever if you want to stay connected to reality because there are incredibly powerful forces in place to make sure we stay on the first layer.
Or are there a lot of adtroturfing hn accounts to influence the narrative?
It reminds me of pg's article on submarine and the pr industry
Discipline is required.
Marketing used to be obvious, now it's deceptive. You can't tell whether the content you're watching is genuine or astroturfing.
> Maybe Geese is a psyop, and maybe Katseye is an industry plant, but do we actually care?
...the article tries to normalize that.
But hell yeah, Amanda Silberling, I do actually care and won't ever accept that crap as norm.
There are many this-is-just-what-is-done “values” that were discussed like this. Not quite as on-the-nose as spend this ridiculous amount of your salary on specifically X ring.
I’m not singling out America here. I don’t think this shows that it is a uniquely American thing. It is just very convenient for me: I’m not part of the culture so I can watch a little from the outside. And America is a big country (we are told) so naturally there are pop-exposes like this. I do not expect the same amount of resources to be poured into my own corner of the world and all the “organic” things that we value. But that show helped me think about all the things closer to home that might be influencing me.
And since then, or before it, I’ve believed that all of society is a marketing gimmick. The asymmetry of mass media is too great in favor of Big Bad Things (governments, corporations).
What a weird feeling. To know (or believe) that you are a spoiled brat in terms of access to information, many conveniences and such (except my mortgage), and that it just comes at the small price of a Panopticon of constant brainwashing.
And so you go about your day. A Special Occassion on this and that day, which is just a marketing campaign to sell you gifts that you are obligated to buy on this Special Occassion. You know it. But you go along with it. Because what are you going to do? Complain at the nearest plaza to drones like you that also knows the truth but go along with it because it’s just the way things are done and anyway no one cares about your particular eight-page manifesto on how society is slightly broken?
As to the article, naive to the point of being suspect, even. This has been going on for let’s say a long time. But as usual the classic outlet is the Evil Corporation with stupid-arse names like Chaotic Good who has some hateable yuppie press release person who just says, Yes, the Internet is bot-filled and there is a demand and we fill it, in fact we are so proud of it. It’s just, hey these people are doing it, look, it’s these people right here.
But the reality is so insidious and rotten that TikTok Comments on Demand Inc. and Korean Executive-created K-pop is just a farcically shallow treatment of it.
Am I saying that TFA is a psyop?
Yes everything is a psyop
Really made me concerned w/ ad tech.
On Cameron Winter & Geese, i think he and the band are great. But I find it amusing that this weird discourse thinks this wasn't always the way the music industry works. The tools are different but its fundamentally the same playbook
(Late 90's Pop Group Framework)*(Dead Internet Theory) = Clicks and Streams
It's really the same mechanism every time :
- capitalism is about making money, more money, "better"
- someone finds a way to package an activity to a product to be sold
- that activity gets perverted beyond recognition by cutting all corners in order to "just" earn more money by "wasting" less.
Rinse & repeat to the next activity.
PS: context: one recent a16z investment is doublespeed.ai
The problem is that social platforms benefit from this behavior as long as it doesn't get too egregious. Bots contribute to metrics just as easily as real humans as long as investors and ad purchasers feel like it's kept to managable levels.
Nothing on social is organic anymore, and hasn't been long before AI came around, which is why I welcome the AI slop era. It will accelerate us to the endgame, which is acknowledging how bad the problem really is and to start cleaning it up.
Made me realize that it's still possible for things to organically get big.
It's just way way harder now.
Ambient variety, you know, almost static drone, very niche style per se. Never did anything to promote it in any way. Just released it via my friend's digital label on a handful of platforms.
Never had more than ~100 listens a month, and never expected that to change and earn any substantial royalties.
One day, the friend calls and tells he's willing to pay me some pretty penny, and replies to my bewilderment that just a single track from the whole album blew up, glitched the Matrix and obtained some 10'000s of listens.
I investigated a little bit and found out that the track's title coincided with that of some other, much more popular and promoted band.
So I just happened to ride on those coattails.
Edit: removed extra zero in the number of listens :)
OpenClaw is one of those
The other difference is that radio payola was outlawed as the scammy practice it was.
But now we live in the late stage capitalism scam economy (brought to you by Citizens United) where there's effectively no chance of laws like that which are against monied interests being passed anymore.
I'd love for this kind of scam to be regulated, at least. "Not a real fan - paid endorsement".
But seriously, more than psyop, it’s the stupid recommendation algorithms pushing the same thing to people. It’s quite apparent when browsing music on Youtube and finding new discoveries. Everybody in your same niche is pushed the same new bands, rather than the algo pushing different bands to different people, as one would expect.
The reason that I completely missed Geese until the psyop reached HN is probably because it was pushed by TikTok which I don’t interact with, so I was insulated from it until the word-of-mouth phase of the viral spread.
Ultimately, I kind of hate the guy's voice. Sort of reminds me of... Parquet Courts? Who I don't really love, either.