techpineapple

I would say this is good to see on principle, but I assume which businesses they target will be decided through corruption and not data.

But it always has, Twitter hasn’t gotten bigger “people have gotten tired of echo chambers” would imply movement from echo chambers to places where people are together. Where’s the movement. I think _more_ people are opting for echo chambers than did at the hay day of the Internet, but not as many as you would think.

So I wouldn’t say, “people are tired of echo chambers” I would say, “people are interested in echo chambers, but not as many as first thought”.

But of course, none of these are true echo chambers, and this is in response to Nate Silver saying that he was glad that the far left is gone from Twitter, so everyone has a different definition of their sort of spectrum of “this is a different opinion” and “this is spam”. Is “I don’t want to be in the nazi bar” and “I don’t want bad faith leftists in my social media” a substantively different argument?

But also, I dunno, I’m on blue sky and not Twitter because I don’t tend to enjoy being in the “place where it’s happening”. It’s not an echo chamber to me, just smaller, I hate obnoxious leftists too.

Is this that masculine energy Zuck was hoping to bring to Facebook? For serious though, this seems like the kind of political awkwardness detailed in careless people.

It makes me wonder, some people do seem to rise to prominence by being serious principled people, but it seems fewer and farther between recently, and it’s amazing to think the extent to which values I was dissuaded from as a kid are the key to success.

It’s also - maybe this is part of the lifecycle of all businesses, but it’s wild when thinking of why capitalism is “good” that people have envisioned self-interest in this way which causes people to pull apart in a productively competitive tension, and not self interest as being “manipulate the government until you win” in this morass of toxic re-inforcement.

Yes, some people benefit more from watching the news than others and therefore choose to.

So but maybe reasoning is this leap where they had to make it 20x more expensive but now costs head back on a downward trajectory and future evolutions don’t require the same jump in tokens?

A, singular? Which specific point of view is it weaponized for that it’s trying to hide?

Maybe you’re not skeptical enough.

Me a Wikipedia editor?! blushes no? These days I just let ChatGPT tell me what to think, it’s more objective and rational since it’s just the thoughts of a computer and not messy human emotions.

“A good encyclopedia doesn’t push an ideological agenda”

But this is the no true Scotsman fallacy, encyclopedia’s are inherently biased. A good _______ doesn’t push an ideological agenda but they all do. I think I would argue Wikipedia less and more transparently than most. They just cover a lot more and are the main one so you see it a lot more.

This article suggests for instance that though Wikipedia’s does indeed have much more bias than británica, that bias may mostly be a factor if it’s length:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/hbsworkingknowledge/2015/01/20/...

“ What’s more, much of Wikipedia’s bias seems to be due to the longer article length of the online publication, where word count is less of an issue than the historically printed Britannica. When compared word to word, most (though not all) of Wikipedia‘s left-leaning proclivities come out in the wash. In other words, for articles of the same length, Wikipedia is as middle-of-the-road as Britannica.

“If you read 100 words of a Wikipedia article, and 100 words of a Britannica [article], you will find no significant difference in bias,” says Zhu. “Longer articles are much more likely to include these code words.”

So again my point would be, your criticism seems nihilistic, why try to have a thing that may, like all things, be inherently flawed, how can something fail in its mission if all of its failures are normal human fallibilities.

My guess is that there is a belief that the value extraction is happening closer to the user.

Like before search engines you wanted to be a web page with a recipe for chocolate cake, and you could monetize the value of that recipe with ads.

Then search engines existed and people spent part of their time on the search engine rather than the web page, extracting value there (and possibly redirecting away from your particular chocolate cake tecipe) AI summaries means it is very hard to extract value further down the value chain; neither the search engine nor no recipe website will get as much traffic as the AI summary.

So if people habitually type Google.com and habitually use their AI (or ChatGPT for that matter) there’s no money in being the website that has the info, and the only way to get ahead of all that would be to be native in browser deciding where you go.

“I seek out individuals I think are smart from a variety of places and read a lot - I'm not sure if there's another way. The more I do this, the more I have a general dislike for wikipedia.”

Right but then this isn’t the purpose of an encyclopedia. Like great! But it feels like you’re saying “the more I cook fresh meals, the less I like microwave dinners”. I should Hope so!

But what is better? I mean yes, reading 20 sources on a topic and coming to your own conclusions about an issue is the right answer, but the fact that Wikipedia published its edit history and discussions page makes it seem better than then what everything?

Almost every book you read about Israel Palestine will probably be biased in some way, certainly the news will be. It feels like perfect being the enemy of good. Like sure it’s a mess like all compendiums of human knowledge, but also seems massively better than the alternative.

Your point about the encyclopedia seems strange, sure it’s likely to be less accurate less complete and more biased, but it’s narratively interesting is like? What are you trying to accomplish than that that’s better?

Annoyance at Wikipedia feels nihilistic. Like “it’s not perfect so why try”. “I’d rather read things where I think I know what the bias is (but probably don’t”

What are people regularly using Wikipedia for that the bias is that terrible? Are you exclusively looking up controversial conflicts, right wing leaders and climate change? I just have never had my everyday curiosity cross paths with only those things which are controversial by Wikipedia standards.

Also I find a lot of people’s disagreements usually come down to “ok, I see that the information that I thought was censored is actually available but not in the format that I prefer”

And if you’re looking for objective information about the Israel Palestine conflict you’re hardly going to get it anywhere.

This is definetly pedantic, but also:

“Just genuinely try to build the small habits that move you closer to who you want to become.”

So are you saying you should extend yourself to try things you might not normally do? Things that may not be a part of your personality? Could this perhaps be described as being fake?

“it encourages people to present themselves as something they are not.”

If you are not comfortable with public speaking, it is ok to pretend you’re comfortable.

They did say this was specifically in customer service, which if there was a department I believe you might be replaced by AI this would be it;

Alternatively though if the market is bad and there not launching as many new products or appealing to as many new customers, customer support may be a cost center you’d force to have “AI efficiencies”

> I think most people are a bit tired of the echo chambers online and the stats show it.

Are they? The article suggests overall Twitter usage is down, what suggests a change in behavior away from echo chambers? I thought most of the evidence suggests people want more echo chambers (like Marc Andreesen opting for a Silicon Valley signal group over Twitter even)

I got in my first fight with Bluesky leftists recently. And while it was remarkably annoying (for think I got a bit of a better sense of how challenging our political situation is), I could mute them pretty easily, I chose to keep engaging.

I was never a huge Twitter fan, but I think part of the reason I’m on Bluesky is an ideal of something more distributed. I do wish they’d figure out a way to make the platform more compelling for more people; it would probably be better for me too, I kind of want more of an echo chamber where I can have moderate views from the left and right and avoid the extreme ones, but it does feel like a lot of those extreme views edge into my feed.

The other thing about Blueskyism though, as Nate Silver mentions, is I suspect it gets people engagement. I notice MattYglesias often engages with the most poorly intentioned users, and it’s certainly on purpose. Though there are degrees I’m sure (as Nate Silver mentions, it’s probably uncomfortable being the main character) if I had to guess part of Blue Sky’s challenge is that moderates who give it a shot intentionally or unintentionally increase the types of engagement that lead to blueskyism.

I wonder if politics is a top line issue or a bottom line issue. Teenagers never seriously paid attention to politics when I was a kid, now everyone does. So are people really getting dumber or are dumber people getting into politics.

You don't really think that.

> I mean, where is: "I rewrote Redis from scratch using Claude Code and here is the repo"?

This is one of my big datapoints in the skepticism, there's all these articles about how individual developers are doing amazing things, but almost no data points about the increase of productivity as a result.

One of these things is not like the other.

Our politics has gotten bizarre, I know Republicans are taking an anti-crime stance, but like isn’t also Republicans advocating for like diminished state capacity and a sovereign citizen type status?

January 6th, proud boys, the Malheur National Wildlife refuge occupation. Time for a multitude of Ruby Ridges I guess.

I assume you mean violent crime? One of the reasons this is so hard is that everyone disagrees on what crimes should be.

Drinking and Driving? Not i a libertarian utopia. https://youtu.be/2xcQIoh3FQQ?si=wRhIKdQOpklwcjIK

Kids? Hope they don’t have wild teen years.

Something’s I’ve noticed are better in a context; or similarly, I choose not to like them because time / my life has gone a different way.

Like I like going to state fairs, and I like country music in that context, even if I wouldn’t choose to put it on the radio at home. I don’t watch snarky reality tv like the real housewives, but I might enjoy it surrounded by my snarky gay friends or put another way - if people I like like like something I can appreciate it with them.

Cross cultural experiences when traveling fit into this category too. Lots of things I wouldn’t sort of pursue in my own but leave fond memories with strong emotional resonance in retrospect.

This kinda feels like they’re saying they don’t have product market fit.

Is the Bay Area sometimes part of the nation, like y is sometimes a vowel?

But my point is that this is a highly competitive environment, the whole point in a highly competitive environment is to manipulate the environment and people. That’s what people get promoted for. So why not play the game? Again in the hypothetical if you are “less sensitive rather than believe you can manipulate the environment.” You lose.

But like it works for Musk and Trump, and probably hundreds of other leaders today, why not take their example? (Assuming again, your highly ambitious and competitive, I’m more pro social, so I’d take your route)

This is legitimately something I’ve been asking myself lately, we talk about a world that values one thing ( rationality, respect, pro social behavior) but reward another (pettiness, vindictive, selfishness). Why do we pretend?

Also, and maybe the most important point, John Carmack is 100% trying to manipulate his environment and people, that’s why he’s so successful!

The world is literally run by people who are good at manipulating people and their environment. That’s what an entrepreneur is, that’s what a politician is, that’s what an artist is. Your argument seems to mostly be people shouldn’t try to manipulate the world in a way that I don’t like.

For another take - what’s the game theory here?

If I’m kinda sensitive but also hyper-ambitious, I acknowledge that Facebook has

1. Some of the highest pay in the industry. 2. Ultra-competitive environment. 3. Low moral principles.

Seems like the strategy would be to use every lever at your disposal to manipulate your environment, rather than leave and risk getting paid less.

Most aren’t.

On the one hand, I think people on the outside(maybe as well as people on the inside) are bad at differentiating between good conflict and bad conflict. A shift like this is going to cause drama, and there’s no way to integrate all these personalities without problems.

On the other hand, I wonder if AGI will be Silicon Valley’s white whale.

“Wang and Zuckerberg have struggled to align a timeline to achieve the chief executive’s goal of reaching superintelligence” is a bananas sentence.

I mean, all things considered is government web design that bad? I’m sure there are explicit exceptions, but I like say the national parks website, I surely wouldn’t like to see it turned into some bland minimalist Airbnb style design.

It seems the problem is just attention and not strictly speaking thought leadership.

I don’t know what this means, also, this isn’t about “scary feelings” some people want to use the power of the state against gay people. Probably not the mainstream of the Republican Party, but it was just an interesting observation, not a judgement.