> AI does not extend those abilities so much as it completely replaces it.
These two elements (extend/replace) are not mutually opposed according to McLuhan's tetrad.
1,108 karma · joined June 8, 2024
These two elements (extend/replace) are not mutually opposed according to McLuhan's tetrad.
Being conscious of what type of memory you're working in (or need to engage) may be the trick to building rhythm or flow, or whatever. Depending on the case the LLM may not even be necessary. Use something else.
The trap could be in trying to depend on and work with a model the same way we would work by ourselves, as the author describes, letting every type of memory unconsciously operate.
I appreciate the clarification.
Not necessarily. The take is reasonable but I'm curious about who could be bold enough to actually talk about or disclose their use of LLMs during these events.
Interpret this article as an attempt at criticizing or curtailing this effect instead.
Where would you start.
Turning into what from where is the interesting part.
But...I like MDV.
No one until you it seems.
> Cable TV is an example of something that no one is objecting to.
@tencentshill's reference to cable TV originates from the question of whether Hacker News operates via algorithm and would be subject to the sweeping regulation proposed by @conception. The answer is yes.
If I wanted to be pedantic I'd try to argue that cable TV operates according to its own kind of algorithm. And I almost did, so you got me there at least. But there's enough factors that contribute to television programming that it's debatable how far it is from using one (or a recommender system, rather) and whether under different circumstances the EU's issue with "endless scroll" and "autoplay" would be aimed at TV.
Of course the main difference is that television in Europe is probably regulated different than the internet.
I'm not objecting to the internet being regulated like television. For the record, I don't hold one to the same standard of utility as the other. I'm speculating on what would happen if the internet were to be regulated like television according to the combined scenarios advanced by @conception and @tencentshill. Do you follow?
Once upon a time academic reputations were generally ex-
pected to be based upon the productions of books, studies, mono-
graphs—in sum, upon the production of ideas and scholarly
works, and upon the judgment of these works by academic col-
leagues and intelligent laymen. One reason why this has been so
in social science and the humanities is that a man’s competence
or incompetence has been available for inspection, since the older
academic world did not contain privileged positions of compe-
tence. It is rather difficult to know whether the alleged compe-
tence of a corporation president, for example, is due to his own
personal abilities or to the powers and facilities available to him
by virtue of his position. But there has been no room for such
doubt about scholars working, as old-fashioned professors have
worked, as craftsmen.
However, by his prestige, the new academic statesman, like the
business executive and the military chieftain, has acquired means
of competence which must be distinguished from his personal
competence—but which in his reputation are not so distinguished.
A permanent professional secretary, a clerk to run to the library,
an electric typewriter, dictating equipment, and a mimeographing
machine, and perhaps a small budget of three or four thousand
dollars a year for purchasing books and periodicals—even such
minor office equipment and staff enormously increases any
scholar’s appearance of competence. Any business executive will
laugh at the pettiness of such means; college professors will not
—few professors, even productive ones, have such facilities on a
secure basis. Yet such equipment is a means of competence and
of career—which secure clique membership makes much more
likely than does unattached scholarship. The clique’s prestige
increases the chance to get them, and having them in turn in-
creases the chance to produce a reputation.@Aurornis: "Hacker News is a site that presents data by algorithm. Under your definition, Hacker News goes away, too."
@Aurornis (cont'd): "When every site with “an algorithm” is liable for content posted, nobody is going to allow you to post something. It’s back to only reading content produced and curated by companies for us. Total own-goal for the individual internet user."
@Aurornis (cont'd): "If a site becomes liable for content posted, you cannot allow users to post content without having the site review and take responsibility for every comment and every post."
@tencentshill: "The algorithm is not personalized. It's the same for every user. No issue there..."
Me: "But still an algorithm".
@tencentshill: "Yes it's still an algorithm. Cable TV programming is another example."
Me: "...how do broadcasters select/schedule their programming?"
***
If the "broader statement" that you're referring to is @conception's, then I agree with @Auronis that this would have negative effects on how websites like Hacker News operate. Failing to distinguish personalized recommendation systems from depersonalized ones and proposing regulation that affects them the same is an impartial approach.
The speculated consequence is that platforms (e.g., Hacker News) will not want to assume liability for the content that users share. [0] If this were to happen only a few platforms would exist, at least on the clear/open web. The general online experience would become something like a pastiche of 60s cable television with three or four providers authorized to broadcast media.
With the direction that democracy is trending across the world that would mean state-run or state-approved media. Or all online communities will have to organize and operate like more traditional institutions like this biking community in London is doing: https://www.lfgss.com/conversations/401988/.
[0]: Some parts of this community already suspect that moderation conveniently buries controversial or subversive submissions. See this one from today! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48110927
https://www.wsj.com/tech/texas-hires-lawyers-to-handle-antit...
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/lisa-fal...
It's a lot easier to not have to delineate the myriad of effects that each platform has on its users and issue broad-sweeping legislation that will have consequences on how information is distributed and how people can interact with each other according to how information is spread.
We're dealing with technology capable of containing various kinds of media at a scale far unlike what McLuhan observed 60 years ago. That's not so say that he's become obsolete.
Read this and let me know if I'm getting it wrong...
https://web.archive.org/web/20060605204535/http://individual...
There's been criticism about the culture surrounding platforms like Mastodon/Bluesky that anticipated this.
Depersonalized algorithms or recommender systems aren't inherently better than personalized ones. HN is an exceptional example of the former but I think at scale people would come up with a different crop of complaints for them.