I offer a few other moments you might gesture toward as the beginning of the end of shared reality.
First, 1987, with the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine and the subsequent boom in partisan talk radio shows.
Second, 1989, when cable TV became a mature technology reaching half of U.S. households.
And finally, maybe a lesser item, the introduction of the DVR circa 2000, when we stopped watching scheduled TV together.
I wonder if more historically informed people would find the fracturing going further back as other advancements in publishing technology allowed more people to share more views.
> The industry boomed in the 1980s as more and more customers bought VCRs. By 1982, 10% of households in the United Kingdom owned a VCR. The figure reached 30% in 1985 and by the end of the decade well over half of British homes owned a VCR.
My impression of the VCR is not too many people managed to use it for DVR-style rescheduling live TV. Although it did have that feature. We mainly used it to watch movies that we had already been in the theater.
But, for sure, another fracturing. We weren't all talking about the nine movies in the theaters, but whatever we had rented and watched on tape instead.
In those pre-streaming days, it would often occupy itself by filling otherwise-empty hard drive space with stuff that people might want to watch at a time of their choosing -- based on previous and simple Thumbs Up / Thumbs Down inputs from the handheld remote. In this way, it generally had stuff recorded and available for viewing 24/7 that people in the house might actually want to watch, at just the cost of some otherwise-idle machine time and some simple user ratings to direct it.
At that time, it was a very neat DVR with very thoughtful features that were implemented in smart ways.
I wanted to watch THX-1138, which was supposed to be George Lucas's first feature-length film. It was somewhat obscure; I couldn't find it to rent locally. I couldn't find it in the published schedules for the premium channels we had, either.
I could have bought a new copy, maybe, but IIRC even that was problematic. This whole Internet thing was still mostly confined to the old-web era and inexpensively mass-produced DVDs hadn't entered the era of ubiquity.
So I told the Tivo DVR to record that film, anyway, without further instruction. Despite knowing that it was hard (mabe impossible!) to find on-air: I just gave it the name and told it to make it so.
And as unlikely as that seemed to me at that time: It did. It took months for it to find THX-1138. When it was eventually scheduled to be aired (one time, in the middle of the night): It made that recording a priority, executed that recording without flaw, and kept that recording so I could watch it later.
That was gold. VCRs never, ever did that stuff. (Most other DVRs never did, either.)
What's unique now is decentralized + extreme potential reach. Or it was. Now we have to consider bias in the algorithm that sticks stuff in front of us and is, I suspect, the modern equivalent of those daily newspaper presses.
You're assuming that "rich" is the only relevant dividing line, which it isn't.
It's why I hate people looking down on fanfiction, too. Aliens was Alien fanfiction. The New Testament is OT fanfiction. Hell, nolan's The Odyssey is fanfiction.
The establishment uses terms to dismiss outsider art as less-than, and this isn't much different. (They of course get to decide what the "inside" is)
Just because an established Hollywood director was a fan of the first Alien movie does make his script for Alien's sequel "fan fiction".
Cameron had already written and directed The Terminator when the owners of the Alien franchise chose his script for the sequel.
(Fifty Shades of Grey in contrast really did originate as fan fiction.)
I think you missed my point: printing at scale needs a support system and a distribution system, and that requires capital. The "age of mass, top-down communications" didn't start "in the mid 20th century", and the printing press should not be used as a counterexample to support rayiner's argument. William Randolph Hearst was born in 1863.
The point is you are letting a system designed by elites to uphold elites set the boundaries. There are many forms of alternative media out there, some more popular than any billionaire owned rag.
Just expand your definition and don't let others tell you what is or isn't appropriate. Especially when it comes to political thought.
Add in the red scare + knee capping more leftists + academics during the 60s, 70s and you have a once massively influential independent confederate type of worker lead organizations that now amount to some moderate pundit's substack where they traded advocacy for ad dollars.
But before all this there were dual power institutions and mutual aid even going as far as providing free public education to all (who do you think taught cattle ranchers how to read in the 1880s? Then look at how quickly they took up leftist literature then writing their own).
What are you truly saying here because it just sounds like you don't know the history of labor in the US, which no shit. They don't teach this stuff anywhere, you have to purposely seek it out because neoliberals consider this type of stuff heretical.
The yellow journalism era, on the other hand, was a little closer to the rich owning the press.
Times are not as different as we'd like to believe
But corporations were an act of Congress in 1776. Early America was decidedly anti-corporate (the Boston Tea Party was about a tax break to a corporation). Early Americans (and early thinkers who influenced Americans) were grossly distrustful of corporations and pools of money.
> The directors with of such [joint-stock] companies, however, being the managers rather of other people's money than of their own, it cannot well be expected, that they should watch over it with the same anxious vigilance with which the partners in a private copartnery frequently watch over their own
Adam Smith, the Wealth of Nations
I'm hopeful that the next one will last even longer since we'll have to build it explicitly for resisting corruption. Neither the printing press nor radio nor webs 1 or 2 had fighting back as part of their DNA. 3 was a bit of a flop, but there's a lot of design space still out there to explore.
Central points of control are also single points of failure. I think that without this bias we'd have a much more resilient infrastructure, not just in the face of corruption, but in the face of things like solar flares.
Says who though? The current front runners? Who can't even not let them hack into into other companies over the weekend unsupervised already?
Our earlier communication technologies merely had to work... at all. The next one will have to work in a world full of adversaries. The current front runners' products are those adversaries.
Sure, they have legitimate uses, but when it comes to trustworthy communication between humans, AI agents have nothing to offer except for the ability to interfere. Sure, they can also defend against that interference, but that's a bit like how gmail blocks spam while simultaneously serving ads to your inbox: they're not so much solving a problem as protecting a monopoly on their ability to cause that problem.
First, let me acknowledge the quasi-monopoly aspect -- it definitely constrained choice and filtered world events through the lens of their corporate overlords, the CIA dripped propaganda into discourse, etc.
But there was so much shared experience that that pretty much unified the US as a tribe. Conspiracies were passed around but were kind of like underground whispers. There was no Red vs Blue.
I'm not arguing to go back to those times, but in many ways the internet and more so, social media, is a deal with the devil.
And even when TV was limited to a small few national OTA (over the air) channels, different people would tune in at different times to watch their different preference of shows. So just because content was fewer, it didn’t necessarily equate to different people consuming the same content.
The real crux of the modern problem isn’t preference drive choices. It’s independent publishers being driven out by corporate greed. Eg AI traffic making it unviable for independent blogs. But then one could argue that the current ecosystem, where the barrier for publishing being so low, is an anomaly because historically that was always prohibitively expensive. To go back to the TV example: you couldn’t commission a show without deep pockets and a lot of TV exec contacts.
I’d love our golden age of information to be persistent. But, and as yourself and others have alluded to, that’s not guaranteed unless we fight to keep it that way.
A: It excludes opinion.
I don't know the word for the opposite of shared reality (maybe private individualized realities), but it results in a scenario where you have nothing in common with other people other than "I saw some thing" and therefore it becomes very difficult to discuss anything with them.
Different cultures?
I think different cultures can share the same reality, though filtered through different lenses.
If two people from different cultures watch the same movie, one finds it ok and the other offensive and disrespectful, that's a shared reality filtered through different cultural backgrounds. Even if either version of the movie is dubbed, censored, or altered in any way, there's still enough common or shared material that a discussion can be held.
If two people had completely different experiences and watched completely different, tailor-made movies, then there's very little for them to discuss or even disagree with. "I haven't watched your movie", "I haven't watched yours either", "Mine was better", "I guess... I wouldn't know, I thought mine was cool", etc. No shared reality.
My point, which admittedly my last message didn't make at all, is that "different shared realities" is not a new thing. The concept is what would have been referred to as "different cultures" throughout most of human history.
Different art, politics, passions, fears, identities, and myths is what cultural variety is about.
If you and I watch the same movies and listen to the same music and follow the same politics and share the same dreams and worries, I don't think it's reasonable to say that we are from different cultures.
What is being described as a "shared reality" in this thread feels more like globalism and less like something obviously positive or worth protecting.
I'm all for more cultural variety as an expression of individual differences.
The original point of this subthread was that we can't even agree on a shared set of facts anymore! The political Right has an entirely different set of facts than the political Left, and when our reality is derived from those facts, we cannot share the same reality anymore.
The colour of grass is something that’s scientifically measurable.
My point is that some broadcasters are very strict about sticking to the facts. Some will misrepresent those facts but not technically lie (eg discuss statistics that favour their partisan view but don’t share the full context behind those stats).
And then there’s broadcasters like Fox News that promote flat out lies. It’s often not even an interpretation of the truth. It’s shared as an opinion but the evidence clearly proves it’s just lies presented as facts.
And I really wish there were criminal charges for broadcasting blatant lies. Not just in America, but most of the developed world where populist-propaganda is used to brainwash gullible voters.
We, as a society, fully understand the concept of truthful and untruthful statements. We learn it as a child and get scalded when we lie. We depend on this understanding in law, courts, contracts, and commerce. We understand it when educators teach and when requesting services of others.
If you want to claim that communication cannot be truthful nor verifiable at any level, then society would fail to function because the literal point of communication is to share an information.
Now if you wanted to make a philosophical point about proving an intent to lie, or our perceptions of reality, rather than communication as a medium, then that’s a different topic (and one I discussed elsewhere in this thread). But for your exact argument presented, we already have millennia of past precedence to prove that communication is expected to have truthful statements.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1621
https://www.gov.uk/contempt-of-court
https://www.uklegalguides.com/what-is-fraud/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-Truth_Pledge
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce8n99727lvo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton
And they are literally hundreds of thousands of other examples I could share where communication is understood to have provable truthful states.
Literally no one, aside yourself, believes that it’s impossible to communicate a fact nor that lies doesn’t exist.
I don't know, there is pretty strong evidence in this discussion that we are unable to communicate. Your apparent opinion of I am saying continues to show to be incorrect over and over — and I'm sure that goes both ways.
In fact, it seems evident that, deep down, you already realize this as you have stopped even trying to add anything of your own to the discussion, outsourcing to the words of others. Poor form to not be able to speak to something yourself, but I can appreciate that your emotions are starting to run wild on realizing that the world isn't as simple as you originally imagined.
But, as before, I likely have the wrong opinion about what you are trying to say. There is no objective way to measure language. QED.
Let's face it, there is no technical reason for us to disagree. The universe is what it is and that is an incontrovertible fact. We can measure the state of universe scientifically. There is fundamentally nothing we can disagree about except our opinion of the language. And, indeed, it is apparent that we are failing to discuss the state of the universe because our opinion about what the words mean is ostensibly not shared.
But, I mean, that's what we've been talking about the whole time: that there is no objective way to measure language. If you are trying to repeat what I said from the start, what value do you believe is added? Simple acknowledgement?
JFK was shot, that's not just my opinion.
Unless you choose to believe some kind of post-modern crazyness, in which case - have at it.
To be clear, I don’t think this line of thinking helps much. But it’s an interesting philosophical dilemma.
The faking part would be in who is blamed and what country to bomb etc.
I'm saying that not everything is opinion, that there does exist a category called 'fact'. And you're talking about something else - a chain of trust with respect to those facts.
This is starting to go down the crazyness line I had mentioned. I get it's fun to philosophize about such things, but it's not how we live.
Do you have access to their head? How do you know that someone didn’t swap that head for someone else who had been shot?
Like I said, this is purely a philosophic argument. I’m not actually trying to suggest that there isn’t such thing as “facts”.
> And you're talking about something else - a chain of trust with respect to those facts.
No, I’m making a psychological point that our perceptions are what we use to construct our reality, and that our perceptions are malleable. If they weren’t, then drugs would have no effect, psychosis wouldn’t be a thing, and people’s opinions wouldn’t differ about even the most straightforward things like god, globe vs flat earth, and so on and so forth.
> This is starting to go down the crazyness line I had mentioned. I get it's fun to philosophize about such things, but it's not how we live.
I agree. As I said in the previous comment:
“To be clear, I don’t think this line of thinking helps much. But it’s an interesting philosophical dilemma.”
I'm not sure I understand.. we have objective realities in the world that are certainly not "opinions".
According this logic, gravity exists because opinions coincide?
yeah because there is a shared reality in which you can both see the same movie. enjoy it while it lasts.
Exactly. The shared reality is the experience. You both were given the same opportunity to take in the same information. The different opinion is what comes out of the other side of the meat suit processing the experience.
Algo driven results changes the experience by changing what the user perceives. So there might never be a shared experience.
I imagine in prior ages this was perhaps more about folks reading a core collection of books. I expect there was less shared culture than in ^
Now it seems like we're in an era with (potentially) less of a shared cultural bases than either of those times. I've certainly met people where there's really no overlap - their core beliefs, values, etc - fundamentally different foundations. If that becomes more widespread, it's hard to know what that will do to our societies.
Take your examples, Friends and Frasier were aired at roughly the same time in the UK (obviously on competing stations). Most people watched Friends, but that show wasn’t really my thing. So I watched Frasier. As did my closest friends. And we’d chat about that. But I couldn’t join in with work colleagues with Friends chats.
It’s a bit like sports matches. People at work will talk about football/soccer but I’d be more interested in Snooker. So I’d chat snooker with friends and duck out of the football work chat.
I wonder if there's a way to keep the positive effects of such diversity but mitigate the drawbacks. Certainly echo chambers are undesirable.
The answer society mostly settled on is representative democracy.
You appoint qualified candidates via consensus, and then give them the microphone and some measure of control as long as the consensus stays strong. This is sort of what we have now with influencer culture.
The flaw has always been human nature. It turns out that half of all people are of below average intelligence and they consequently make bad decisions. Especially if the smarter half use them as pawns to assume control, which is what US politics has become.
Once the Morlocks and the Eloi have settled into their roles the entire thing falls apart and democracy dies screaming.
Worse than that; it turns out that even people of above average intelligence consistently make bad decisions! AND they still attempt to control others!
Yeah, absolutely. But for the web, at least for my daily use of it, this was the first big "shift". Learning how something was spelled by someone googling it and quoting the number of results to the others.. good times. And you can no longer find out what the page with highest page rank says about "pizza" regardless of where YOU happen to be.
Radio gave us Demagogues like Father Coughlin in the US and Hitler in Germany, and we still havent dealt with the problems radio introduced when television came along and now we have the internet with social media, podcast, and algorithmic echochambers, and algorithm induced radicalization. Radio television internet any one is just as much a shock to society as print was and we still havent figured out how to adapt yet to any fully.
And micropayments would've taken off in a big way.
The only reason why micropayments doesn't really exist today isn't due to technical reasons, it's because advertising is too dominant, and because consumers got trained on expecting everything on the internet to be "free", not realizing they're the product.
Humans are only now figuring out pointy shoes are bad for people's feet. This species is wrong about almost everything when it comes to its own well being and like pointy shoes - it's a completely unnecessary self-own that barely benefitted anyone.
I think advertising runs a little deeper into our identity and history than you are thinking. If you have a sign in your window describing your wares, that's advertising. If you're standing on a street corner inviting customers to enter, that's advertising. If you're doing nearly anything to make the world know that your business exists, you're advertising. I'd rather not live in a world where "ad cops" see fit to intrude and opine on such activities. Attacking PII brokers, on the other hand, would do far less collateral damage.
I'm with you on the shoes though.
Pedantry is not a counter argument, it's a deflection. We are not in court.
A heavily instanced MMO may as well be a single-player or co-op game with a shared chatroom as a lobby, there is absolutely none of the emergent play, none of the characterization of players & groups of players, nothing original. Instead, give me the same ground to walk on as everybody else, even if our tread wears all the grass off of it; Half of my life in these games was getting bored waiting for a mob to spawn and fucking around making friends waiting in line, or ganging up on the guy who wanted to cut in line, or waging war on the clan that currently controls the needed territory, or grouping together to fight mobs higher than I should be able to hit (which the instance will just Adjust Downwards). Instancing and other auto-personalization algorithms cut the annoyances that are central to human socialization, achievement loops, and wayfinding.
I still don't understand the appeal of an online game where you're algorithmically guaranteed a ~50% win rate after a calibration period. Seems to be selling well enough though.
In Data 2 the skill level shifted upwards enourmously for pro players and I feel also for normal players. But the scene also got kinda lame and boring with too optimized strategies.
I never wanted to be the best CS:S player, I wanted to hang out with the regulars on the server I was a regular at. Like a bowling league or a group bike ride.
Like what is the point of making grinding in games more efficient as you remove the fun and social aspect and the advantage of organizing a party.
There was no global yellow pages where plumbers from Odessa were listed beside plumbers from Tokyo, was there?
If you were looking for something more esoteric, you were going to find different results in the World Christian Encyclopedia than you would in the Encyclopedia Britannica
"...but how do I know that what I perceive as a certain meme, you also perceive as that same meme??"
It ignores the fact that there was no such shared reality. Just go and look for the time when everyone agreed if racism existed.
That is, the www was "being killed" already in a lot of ways. "Democratization" and suchlike open ideals had already been receding for a long time.
In part, this is because of "democratization" of access. The old web was a self selected, subpopulation. After smartphones, it is the whole population.
Facebook's walled garden and other apps using the web as "merely infrastructure." Algorithic recommendations replace hyperlinks, until it no longer "a web."
Google, imo, represents a sort of intermediate stage. "Pagerank" the original tech behind their search relied on the hyperlink web structure... and also degraded it.
That was SEO paradigm. Now there is the LLM equivalent of SEO.
So... LLMs eat the web, while also making it redundant. The previous paradigm and all it's contents whill exist as a ghost within the new one.
Webrings are nostalgic, but the old web sucked, and there was a dearth of information and fun to be had. I remember getting online and being able to confirm "nope, no new anime content worth looking at today" by quickly checking Usenet and Yahoo's index (which was updated manually) and a few webrings.
now, I'm able to watch a show that aired in Brazil the day after, with English subtitles.
People who long for the web of the 90s, I always feel like they must not be very interesting. Imagine complaining that we can't go back to libraries of the 1970s when the ones today have 3D printers, DVDs to rent, etc. because "there are too many teenagers"
> People who long for the web of the 90s, I always feel like they must not be very interesting.
Judged on an anime freshness scale, probably not.
The old internet was interesting, open, simple, un-gated, and relatively egalitarian with few corporate interests in commanding positions. The new internet is basically a predatory environment disguised as a library.
The Internet used to be a space for high-IQ people, and now it's filled with low attention span, low impulse control people. Tik Tok and Instagram are the worst offenders in this regard, because it enabled borderline illiterate people to communicate on the Internet.
The ease of use introduced the average individuals to the web and online gaming. When I was younger and online gaming was gaining traction my "clan" hosted servers. This is how I started dipping my toes into programming and server configuration. Literally, everyone that was in the clan was quite intelligent. We had debates and discussions on IRC, forums and teamspeak.
Now, gaming and the web is just trash full of brain rotted individuals. Communities have been destroyed by lack of self hosted or self owned servers. Forums have been destroyed by discord. Games are being destroyed by microtransactions.
Yeah, that’s what I meant. Even in Tik Tok there’s a lot of very interesting history, war, etc., stuff.
The old internet was a space for people who were incentivized to spend significant effort dealing with technical things to connect to strangers, which has nothing to do with IQ or "intelligence" or anything like that.
There has always been plenty of people who are extremely stupid, but have no problem following technical minutia as required for things like the early internet.
Remember that early access was extremely expensive. Usually it was billed hourly, at significant rates. This means that the primary filter for internet users back then was connection to resources, through an academic connection, a corporate connection, a government connection, or a lot of personal wealth.
The quality of internet users early on, if it even existed (which I dispute), was more driven by organizations like the government, academia, and defense contractors.
And as much as people cried about "Eternal September", the internet mostly survived as a distributed place with real communities until the late 2000s, where it started to be really profitable to build walled gardens for Advertising economies.
The walls didn't really come up until the 2010s: Facebook being a dominant platform, Google owning Youtube and leveraging that to try and force their own social network, Apple controlling most phones, old forums dying, and the rise of AWS to centralize internet software design.
Similarly, back when computers were expensive, people on the internet generally were higher income, which is also quite significantly correlated with intelligence.
It's nice you can view (pirate) whatever content you want, but not so nice that algorithmic platforms pretend to be neutral social spaces when in fact they're being used to promote certain political and cultural beliefs while suppressing others.
Before slop farms started using ChatGPT, they were using outsourced writers who had a tenuous (at best) grasp on the language and subject. If you searched anything on the web, your first page of search results was generally incredibly fluffy articles.
For example, you would search for "How to use python async" or whatever, and every non-stackoverflow result would go something like "Python is a useful language for async library usage. Python is a language created in... You can install Python by... Synchronous programming is... Asynchronous programming is... Python synchronous code looks like... Python async module code looks like... Popular libraries for async are... Other languages have async such as... To import async module you can..." with every paragraph interspersed with an ad. The content was surface level, relying upon blatant plagiarism of better-written articles and forum posts without attribution. It was an utterly miserable experience if you placed any value on your time.
The only thing that's changed is the quantity of slop, and the karmic irony that the content farmers who put the writing profession into a race-to-the-bottom were themselves discarded, in much the same way as the scabs who replaced striking workers were frequently discarded in the industrial era.
And that's without even getting into the subject of the people who made money as Internet point farmers of Reddit or Twitter, who would repost generic content then sell their accounts to spammers.
The Internet was already going in this direction; the only difference is the rate at which it enshittified. I agree that it's in a worse state than it was 10 years ago, but let's not look at the past through rose-tinted glasses.
The most important thing that's changed is the proportion of slop.
When it was humans originators v human sloppers, we stood a chance.
Now it is going fewer human originators v. vastly more machine sloppers. No chance.
I do it too so it's not a criticism, but I find it kinda interesting culturally. It's a reflection I think of the environment that we've created for ourselves, or has been created for us (or some combo) where somehow you can't point out an unqualified negative of this tech.
This to me is actually one of the clearest bubble signals, just because if it really were as good as all that, it'd be completely redundant to remind everyone of that when criticising it.
I think it might be a sort of weird collective psychological thing where we must not admit what seems pretty clear, just for fear of breaking from norms.
But, of course, yeah it's very useful for some stuff and I use it all the time :-)
Everyone else also thinks like that and so isn't normally unambiguously critical, so you end up not knowing who really thinks that way and who's just doing it because of the game theory.
It could even be practically nobody. There's no way to tell until the deadlock breaks.
My own general thoughts are that AI is extremely useful in discrete cases, will cause an immense amount of cultural and societal harm overall, and there's no clear political path to a healthier development trajectory. I don't think that's an uncommon stance, but people espousing something like that get a lot of hate in a lot of discussions.
I can easily imagine an arms control style series of agreements between the handful of leading AI companies and countries which are imperfect but still quite effective at mitigating the harms without stifling the upsides, but it seems clear that the current leading actors in this space have zero interest in that.
It works with just about anyone but try and say something positive about Trump and, if you don't add a qualifier like that, the first reply is going to be something like, "I guess you like ICE murdering babies." And then the conversation you wanted to have gets completely derailed.
The majority of people's opinions on the subtopics of complex or controversial topics have to align with their opinion on the overall topic.
AI is bad so it must both be useless and be using up all the water.
People have to post very defensively online, otherwise some "um ackshully" guy will be immediately jumping down their throat
If you write anything negative about AI without stroking the ego of the AI bros first by praising their machine best friends they will be all over you calling you a luddite
Go into any subreddit and you see the exact same pattern.
“I know it is ruining all that I hold dear, but what else can I do but profit from it like everyone else?”
Some websites already had minimum “for humans” content for years, as it was all used to appease the algorithm.
And Social Media was the cherry on top, with information overloading, walled gardens, personalization and companies using it to pull a “Hey Fellow Kids” when using it for marketing.
coz yeah good quality material is disappearing on the web fast. the only thing remaining is people building their own private search indexes.
I've been working on a project that basically is a superset of Zotero, just efficient. As if you expected to have more than a few thousand references. I'm sure I'll get it done after the web is long gone.
Will there be venues left (largely) unencumbered by AI to even turn analogue? The top-down control of our industries, financial systems, education, etc by a few mega corporations and fewer mega rich people, who also have vested interests in the advent of AI as AI corps are trying to be, means there's nothing left where AI is not inserted in every vein and nerve and nerve centre.
It is as if a few people in the world are trying to turn this world into something Frankensteinian because they think that then they will get the chance to be the only ones to control this Frankensteinian. They might as well succeed. To what end? I do not believe even they know that. Blindness of greed.
select l.id, l.name
from locations as l
where l.type = 'amusement_park'
and exists (
select id from locations as l2
where l2.type = 'rv_parking'
and distance(l2.geo, l.geo) < $nearby_distance
)
But what we should have is a good map software where you could filter by type and distance (How many amusement parks can be in that circle?) and quickly check if there's a RV parking nearby.The hard job is collecting the data.
Only a novice would look at ai code and say “wow this is good”.
For a lot of problems "quick and good enough" is all that is required. I've used it a lot for managing my Home Assistant setup. Has saved me countless of hours.
In principle I could've done it myself, but I never would have, the time investment required to learn it wouldn't have been worth the value I get from it.
Note that I am talking about frontier models and only the last 6-12 months. Opus was really the breakthrough point for me.
A pain plate of rice is bad food. But would you prefer starving too death? Or for others to starve?
Or saying that a car is a better vehicle than a bicycle. That is probably true, but many times for many people a bicycle is all they can get.
When you discuss design and architecture first, and write that out in a design doc or something along those lines, it works quite well for the most part.
And 9 out of 10 times when it produces some poor results, just asking "is this really a good approach?" or just stating "This code makes me very sad" it will most of the time do a really good job of analysing why that code is bad and how to improve it.
And you should know that this is not accurate. But at this point this has devolved into a dick measuring contest, which I refuse to do. Have a good day.
If ever there were three adjectives which do NOT apply to generative AI...
It's unlikely I would have had the confidence to do it from YouTube alone, specific diagnostic help and a full diagram to work off of was extremely helpful. I had it prepare an SVG of the whole assembly with all the measurements and parts labeled.
That’s the thing with AI - its responses sound plausible enough to non-experts but time and time again I see experts in any given field being able to identify AI content by pinpointing subtle but crucial errors. That’s one of its dangers - it gives you enough confidence to shoot yourself in the foot.
Also, ask people in the trades to review each other's jobs. They will harshly criticize each other too for missing basic things and then go on to vehemently disagree. As an outsider it doesn't mean much that an expert found some fault. They always find something to nitpick.
Yes, but with a human worker there is a chain of accountability. With AI, there is none.
Maybe, but that's part of the experience of learning. I plan to maintain pools for the rest of my life, if I made an oversight which costs me down the line then the lesson will be that much more memorable.
This is an above-ground pool with a pump and a filter, the stakes are relatively low. In the absolute worst case I could rip it all out and pay a pro to do it for the price I was quoted.
I guess what you're talking about is sanitizer, in my case we use chlorine. I test it every time we swim, but I wouldn't have needed an LLM for that. It's very straight forward to maintain pool chlorine, my Dad taught me that when I was 13.
The previous system was also installed by a non-professional and was mostly tubes. It leaked to all hell and looked generally redneck and awful.
First step was draining the pool and doing a nice deep clean. Then I ripped out all the original plumbing until it was just the pool outlets, pump, and filter.
I arranged it all and measured the dimensions. I fed the figures along with a tonne of photos and explanation to GPT. I spent a while talking pros/cons and landed on a design which lined up with what I'd seen on YouTube. I had it prepare me a full shopping list of PVC, tools, cements, etc. all linked to a local pool dealer. I picked it up the next day.
The PVC was all cut with a chop-saw then primed and cemented together. I found this part easier than I would have expected. I put a layer of TigerFlex hose between the PVC manifold and the pump/pool/filter inlets so it had some tolerance.
We've been swimming in it all summer, no issues whatsoever so far.
I expect that it's good for common use cases that's well documented. But then, so are a lot of other approaches.
Yeah, I would imagine pinball machines are at least an order of magnitude more complicated to maintain than above-ground pools are. That situation sounds really annoying, I feel for you.
Pool technology has been more stable, and there are more people out there writing well-informed content for LLMs to extract and present as their own.
I know very little about pinball machines, out of curiosity, do some come with any amount of schematics or diagrams?
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLv0jwu7G_DFVAUoqtVxFV...
I would love to put them on a kiosk in the museum.
The internet has a lot of scans of wildly varying quality. The AI industry's hunger for data means there has been a lot of progress in OCR and data extraction, so I have notions of taking something like PaddleOCR and trying to turn the scans into a cohesive reference site that will work well on phones, etc. But I'm not sure when I will get to it.
If people out there are interested in working on a project like that, let me know. Email me at william@theflip.museum.
The quality it is today, is the worst it's ever going to be.
Bubbles are not a great time to form intuitions. WebVan [1] and Kozmo [2] also seemed to herald a new age. Decades later, brick-and-mortar grocery stores and convenience stores are still doing fine.
> The quality it is today, is the worst it's ever going to be.
Someone in 2004: A few years ago it would have been insane to say that you got help from Google’s I’m Feeling Lucky button to fix your outdoor plumbing.
The quality it is today, is the worst it's ever going to be.a.k.a. the third? fourth? AI summer
This was for a largish (40,000L) above-ground pool with no hookup to my home's plumbing system. The water was all pumped in from a water truck. The previous system was also installed by a non-professional and was mostly tubes. It leaked to all hell and looked generally redneck and awful.
First step was draining the pool and doing a nice deep clean. Then I ripped out all the original plumbing until it was just the pool outlets, pump, and filter.
I arranged it all and measured the dimensions. I fed the figures along with a tonne of photos and explanation to GPT. I spent a while talking pros/cons and landed on a design which lined up with what I'd seen on YouTube. I had it prepare me a full shopping list of PVC, tools, cements, etc. all linked to a local pool dealer. I picked it up the next day.
The PVC was all cut with a chop-saw then primed and cemented together. I found this part easier than I would have expected. I put a layer of TigerFlex hose between the PVC manifold and the pump/pool/filter inlets so it had some tolerance.
We've been swimming in it all summer, no issues whatsoever so far.
I find it telling that the highest praise for LLMs comes from people using it for something where they admittedly have very little domain knowledge. Domain experts usually mention major caveats. I've been testing them on subjects where I already understand the problem well, and I've yet to see any outputs that would make me trust them on things I don't already know.
Anyway, my pool's looking great and I gained some new skills. I probably could have gotten there with books and YouTube alone, but having another tool at my disposal made me a bit more confident.
"LLMs seem good at things you are not good at."
So, if you've never touched PVC before, LLM sounds plausibly competent--it may actually be or it may not be, but you'll walk away from it thinking you learned something. If you are a professional plumber and ask an LLM the same thing, the output will more look flawed and possibly dangerous.
Same for software writing: If you're not a good software developer, you probably think an LLM is great and writes much better code faster than a human developer can. But if you are a good software developer, LLM output is slop and requires huge rework to be passable.
I am not a mechanic by trade, but I know nearly everything there is to know about working on an ICE car. I did paint cars professionally for a bit.
LLMs are absolutely full of garbage advice, when I try to use it for troubleshooting. However, people who don't know anything about cars are telling me it helped them fix issues. I am assuming their issues were maybe surface level and something I would just know without even looking at any manuals, because when I use it for complex problems it just doesn't work for me.
well to be fair, it's sounds about as competent as your average homedepot employee. He's wasn't doing something super complicated, cutting and gluing PVC for an above ground pool is very common and doesn't require a plumber. I used some youtube videos to fix my dishwasher, i didn't need a professional service agent from the manufacturer I just needed some pointers.
as for software writing, for standard everyday enterprise app work which is typically just CRUD and moving data around it works fine. That kind of software does not need to be a highly tuned work of art to meet the requirements.
Why were you not confident with literal how to videos and documentation, but became confident when a chatbot generated probable text?
https://siliconreckoner.substack.com/p/terence-tao-on-machin...
To me it seems like people who are confident in their expertise generally find it useful, even if it's imperfect
For instance, in the domain of software engineering: I would not trust it to implement a major architectural change, or a groundbreaking, complex new feature. I would trust it more (but not completely) on something like a refactoring that may touch thousands of lines in a fairly mechanistic way, but that was a little too-complicated for simpler tools likes regexes. While that's kind of a nifty use, I think it's fair to say that non-LLM software purpose-built for such tasks can probably do the same thing more effectively for less real cost (meaning the currently-subsidized real cost of all the training and inference power burn, etc)
But the education system - at least for me, 20ish years ago - was very much tiered or broken up into classism: if you were highly intelligent or a good learner you'd go to advanced schools where you'd get higher level math, latin, etc. If you were "dumb" you'd get taught how to do woodworking and masonry. At best I was taught how to use a figure saw, drill press safety measures, and how to patch an inner tube (welcome to the Netherlands, this is very important. Or, was, it's much simpler and cheaper to just buy a new inner tube nowadays).
The fellow who'd done it originally is my neighbor and he's a retired teacher. There's a lot of ways to learn this stuff - my one takeaway has been that it's much easier than people make it out to be.
Except, for people who were gently motivated, that information was already pretty well democratized by libraries. You could trivially go to the library, and get whatever books were published on a topic, even if the only copy was on the other side of the country. Tons of the famous names from previous decades got their start teaching themselves things from a book in a library. It was very common in the technical churn of the 20th century that a new project at work meant you went to the library and grabbed books on a brand new topic and self-taught. This for example is how some programmers in the 90s developed 3D engines.
There was even a short period of human history where it was common to pay a few thousand dollars for a family encyclopedia. I got my start reading an 80s encyclopedia, focusing on the more technical tomes, before I found Wikipedia. The drive to access and learn information lead to me learning about computers in a time and place where a formal education on the subject was unavailable to me. I owe my career to it.
After the existence of Ebay, a few hundred dollars could populate a shelf with the standard reference books and material for nearly any interest. All it took was a willingness to look for books, buy them, and sit down and read them.
Similarly, the internet did the same since the 90s. Specifically, it allowed for non-physical clubs to supplement the fact that not everyone lived in Silicon Valley and could access those rich clubs on niche topics. But special interest magazines were already providing some of that functionality.
The primary filtering LLMs do is provide new access and ability to people who are far too lazy and unmotivated to do the real work necessary to learn about something without being literally spoon fed.
This helps explain why the primary thing LLMs have done is increase the noise floor of information, and explains differing sentiments. People willing to put in minimal effort to learn things had zero issue learning new information in the previous regime, so aren't that impressed when an LLM regurgitates the wikipedia intro paragraph or summarizes a popular reference. They already read that. They note that the LLMs confidence is often unwarranted, and they get reasonable results because they have foundational understanding of the domain and already know which pitfalls and problems to be concerned about, and how to prompt the LLM to make the right choices.
For people who largely are unwilling to take minimum effort to learn something new, of course LLMs feel magical, because Wikipedia level introductions to topics are magic to people who aren't already seeking them out. Of course, the question is, what in the world was previously stopping you from learning new things?
[0] https://tomtilley.net/projects/pvc/
(found via https://wiby.me/)
I'm not sure if the sites you linked would have been immediately very helpful in my specific case. You know this is for a pool, right?
The first is called "Everyday Uses for PVC Water Pipe" and has some cool ideas like using PVC for Wiimote holders or tridents, but I don't think that's super relevant for this project.
The second is a great forum which I'm already familiar with, but again, the topic is household plumbing and from a brief skim, none of the topics mention pools. I think mine would have been out of place.
I appreciate you trying to help!
People have been DIYing swimming pools for decades with the help of… books:
* https://www.amazon.com/COMPLETE-GUIDE-SWIMMING-CONSTRUCTION-...
Where do you think ChatGPT got its information from?
Perhaps with good reason?
Funnily enough, I've had a somewhat mixed-to-hostile response when trying to upstream the vibecoded fixes, so I suspect using an LLM to fix broken open-source software (that human maintainers don't have the time to fix themselves, nor the humility to accept an LLM-authored fix) will become more of a thing going forward too.
Oh, it's also been identifying a bunch of patterns in sales data for my business that has been increasing monthly profit consistently since last November (around $4,000 USD, every month, cumulatively so far with no sign of slowing down - could easily be $10k/mo in increased gains by end of financial year).
I tend to respond quite well to AI-authored or assisted PRs to my project, but to be fair we maybe only get 3-5 PRs in a good month.
Thinking it through a little bit is probably coming from having bounties on a few issues that might be contributing to my negative experience.
And apparently is more than adequate to its gulled users.
The problem as usual is the mass of rich people trying to profit off of them, not the technology itself.
Its funny how fast we forget that when Google came out and arguably now many would laugh at the statement "all the good, companies like Google brought to the internet"
It really isn’t doing any of that, though. When AI gets it wrong, that person needs to understand why it is wrong, and without that upfront knowledge or skill of reasoning, it’s much less direct to actually build something in the correct ways.