Are humans really so predictable that algorithms can easily see thru us, or does continuous use of algorithm feeds make us predictable to their results?
Humans overall are extremely predictable. Other factors might aggravate this, but even without any tech involved it's not looking good.
The proof of that fact can be found in things like the Pepys diary. Dude was stoked about his cool watch, and his dalliance with an actress.
The success of algorithmic feeds does not imply that humans are predictable in general. It just means that humans are predictable in terms of what content will keep them scrolling/watching/listening for some more time.
LLMs: high speed stochastic bureaucracy.
Subtly categorising people into bureaucratically compatible holes since 2021.
First : the algorithm predicts thar our behavior today will be like our behavior yesterday. Which makes sense.
Second : what you eat determines how you poop. And they do control what we eat. So that makes sense too.
So both work together.
I think what's important is to understand that these things work because they are at a certain scale. Algorithms are notoriously bad at predicting individual behaviour, hence why recommendation engines are a specialization that is far from solved. But when you have large amounts of traffic, the law of large numbers allows you to predict group behaviour with some accuracy.
So you can't follow a user around and predict their next move and show them the right ad at the right time. But you can take 50 000 middle-aged males, and bet that at least 10 of them will buy a motorbike if you randomly show them a picture of a guy riding in the sunset. Once you have a good volume of this kind of data you can do some casino math to tilt all your bets slightly in your favour, and start betting 24/7.
It's really cold reading, like they do in those mentalist shows. It's a lot dumber than it looks, but it's way more effective than you think.
In large groups, yes. It's just a statistics thing. For example I can't tell if any given flipped coin will be heads or tails but I can tell you that of 100 million flipped coins about 50 million will be tails.
The former
GIGO
We are, but only the truly simple minded can be thoroughly swayed and changed into an antisocial beast of propaganda, tasked with toil and consumption. So, there's no need to vilify "the algorithms" or their results... there's nothing wrong with YouTube recommending me a Japanese "Careless Whisper" cover from the 80s, based on my previous input. 😅
oh you are so mistaken. propaganda, which is essentially advertisement for political stances, takes a toll on us all. you just don't notice it because modern propaganda is targeted towards the subconscious more than towards the conscious, as many people have poorer defenses around their subconsciousness than around their consciousness.
On top of that, you're vastly underestimating how very pliable the human mind mostly is. When presented with one credible idea, an infestation takes place similar to a virus infestation which can make that idea grow exponentially, up to a target size.
Yet you are right that we must not give up confronting ourselves with these kind of messages, in order to find truth. Dialogue is the essential foundation of democracy. Only dialogue can reveal the truth.
Fun fact: LLMs that strictly generate the most predictable output are seen as boring and vacuous by human readers, so programmers add a bit of randomization they call “temperature”.
It’s that unpredictable element that makes LLMs seem humanlike—not the predictable part that’s just functioning as a carrier signal.
The unpredictable element is also why they absolutely suck at being the reliable sources of accurate information that they are being advertised to be.
Yeah, humans are wrong a lot of the time but AI forced into everything should be more reliable than the average human.
That’s not it. Even without any added variability they would still be wrong all the time. The issue is inherent to LLMs; they don’t actually understand your questions or even their own responses. It’s just the most probable jumble of words that would follow the question.
Is it? Is random variance the source of all hallucinations? I think it's not; it's more the fact that they don't understand what they're generating, they're just looking for the most statistically probable next character.
I'm not saying I agree with AI being shoehorned into everything, i'm seeing it being pushed into places it shouldn't first hand, but strictly speaking, things don't have to be more reliable if they're fast enough.
Quantum computers are inherently unreliable, but you can perform the same calculation multiple times and average the result / discard the outliers and it will still be faster than a classical computer.
Same thing like back when I was in grade school and teachers would say to not trust internet sources and make sure to look everything up in an physical book / encyclopedia because a book is more reliable. Like, yes, it is, but it also takes me 100x as long to look it up, so ultimately starting at Wikipedia is going to get me to the right answer faster, the vast majority of the time, even if it's not 100% accurate or reliable (this was nearer Wikipedia's original launch).
You just ruined the magic of ChatGpt for me lol. Fuck. I knew the illusion would break eventually but damn bro it's fuckin 6 in the morning.
i.e. their fundamental limitations is, ironically, why they are so easy to hype