This is nowhere near the worst on a technical level, but it was my first big fuck up. Some 12+ years ago, I was pretty junior at a very big company that you've all heard of. We had a feature coming out that I had entirely developed almost by myself, from conception to prototype to production, and it was getting coverage in some relatively well-known trade magazine or blog or something (I don't remember) that was coming out the next Monday. But that week, I introduced a bug in the data pipeline code such that, while I don't remember the details, instead of adding the day's data, it removed some small amount of data. No one noticed that the feature was losing all its data all week because it still worked (mostly) fine, but by Monday, when the article came out, it looked like it would work, but when you pressed the thing, nothing happened. It was thankfully pretty easy to fix but I went from being congratulated to yelled at so fast.
I've had similar experiences to what troyunrau@lemmy.ca describes. The problem comes more from the expectations that users have as consumers, which they bring with them to open source projects from general culture, not necessarily the existence of the users themselves. Some of those users for big open source projects are often corporations, to boot.
I've posted this here before, but this phenomenon isn't unique to dating apps, though dating apps are a particularly good example. The problem is that capitalism uses computers backwards.
Maybe this is a hot take, but it's really unfortunate that only the unhinged conservative lunatics are willing to have this discussion. I actually think that it'd be really healthy in a democracy to come together and exercise some agency in how we allow tech companies to access our children, if at all, but American liberals seem committed to some very broken notions of technocratic progress paired with free speech, while American conservatives are happy to throw all that away in order to have total control over their children, arriving closer to the right place for very dangerous reasons.
I'm deeply concerned that as a society we're becoming unable to distinguish between science, aka the search for knowledge, and corporate product development. More concerning still is the distinction between a scientific paper, which exists to communicate experimental finding such that it can be reproduced, and what is functionally advertising of proprietary products masquerading as such. No one can reproduce that "paper" cited there, because it's being done in-house at a company. That's antithetical to science.
When you’re creating something new, production is research. We can’t expect Dr. Frankenstein to be unbiased, but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t have insights worth knowing.
Yes and no. It's the same word, but it's a different thing. I do R&D for a living. When you're doing R&D, and you want to communicate your results, you write something like a whitepaper or a report, but not a journal article. It's not a perfect distinction, and there's some real places where there's bleed through, but this thing where companies have decided that their employees are just regular scientists publishing their internal research in arxiv is an abuse of that service./
LLM are pretty new, how many experts even exist outside of the industry?
... a lot, actually? I happen to be married to one. Her lab is at a university, where there are many other people who are also experts.
It's very obviously media bait, and Keumars Afifi-Sabet, a self-described journalist, is the most gullible fucking idiot imaginable and gobbled it up without a hint of suspicion. Joke is on us though, because it probably gets hella clicks.
AI systems in the future, since it helps us understand how difficult they might be to deal with," lead author Evan Hubinger, an artificial general intelligence safety research scientist at Anthropic, an AI research company, told Live Science in an email.
The media needs to stop falling for this. This is a "pre-print," aka a non-peer-reviewed paper, published by the AI company itself. These companies are quickly learning that, with the AI hype, they can get free marketing by pretending to do "research" on their own product. It doesn't matter what the conclusion is, whether it's very cool and going to save us or very scary and we should all be afraid, so long as its attention grabbing.
If the media wants to report on it, fine, but don't legitimize it by pretending that it's "researchers" when it's the company itself. The point of journalism is to speak truth to power, not regurgitate what the powerful say.
Dates could be made up, too.The blog posts that I generated for my site included made up dates in the past. The internet archive says it has a snapshot for March of 2023, but when I click it, it says it doesn't, so I have no way of verifying. The theory about parking real estate hoping to sell it also seems pretty plausible to me. Who knows what dumb shit they're up to.
It's probably either waiting for approval to sell ads or was denied and they're adding more stuff. Google has a virtual monopoly on ads, and their approval process can take 1-2 weeks. Google's content policy basially demands that your site by full of generated trash to sell ads. I did a case study here, in which Google denied my popular and useful website for ads until I filled it with the lowest-quality generated trash imaginable. That might help clarify what's up.
Yes absolutely! Debord comes up a lot on my blog too. I fucking love the Situationists. A lot of these theorists that lived through the earlier days of mass media saw it with such clarity for exactly what it is in a way that those of us born later I think would struggle to see were it not for their writing, not that we bothered to heed their warnings.
I actually think that this is part of a larger phenomenon. It's something that Adorno and Horkheimer identified all the way in the 1940s (in "Dialect of Enlightenment," especially in the chapter "The Culture Industry") that is now greatly accelerating because of computers. The result is what I call The Tyranny of Data. The essay isn't that long and most of the length comes from examples, but I'll try to do a super quick tl;dr of my argument. Here's some Adorno and Horkheimer quotes that I cite:
For enlightenment, anything which does not conform to the standard of calculability and utility must be viewed with suspicion.
and
Bourgeois society is ruled by equivalence. It makes dissimilar things comparable by reducing them to abstract quantities. For the Enlightenment, anything which cannot be resolved into numbers, and ultimately into one, is illusion[.]
Basically, modern society culturally values arguments presented in numbers, especially when expressed in units of currency. I argue that now that we have computers, aka a machine capable of turning everything into numbers very easily, we can easily collapse everything into units of currency. This is a homogenizing and conservative (as in change averse) force (quoting myself):
You can measure how people feel about another Marvel movie, or a politician they already know, or whether they prefer this version or that version of a product. It's much harder to measure interest in a brand new movie idea, or an unknown politician, or a radically new invention. The bigger the change, the harder it is to measure.
Because it's so easy to turn things into numbers now, and because we culturally value data-based arguments as superior to other kinds, like moral or ideological, our collective ability to think in other ways is atrophying. As a result, we struggle to take the necessarily irrational risks that we need to take to make real progress, be it social progress, artistic progress, or whatever.
I go through a bunch of examples, like Joe Biden, who I call "a statistically generated median in corporeal form. He's literally a franchise reboot, the single most derivative but fiscally sound cultural product." I specifically talk about digital media too:
When deciding how much to value websites or podcasts or any other online media, we simply add up the number of downloads. No one actually thinks that's a good way to decide the value of art, writing, journalism, story-telling, lascivious true crime blogs, or reality TV rewatch podcasts. It's just the first number that fell out of a computer. Just like that, a complex social situation was transmuted into a number.
Whenever one of these stories come up, there's always a lot of discussion about whether these suits are reasonable or fair or whether it's really legally the companies' fault and so on. If that's your inclination, I propose that you consider it from the other side: Big companies use every tool in their arsenal to get what they want, regardless of whether it's right or fair or good. If we want to take them on, we have to do the same. We call it a justice system, but in reality it's just a fight over who gets to wield the state's monopoly of violence to coerce other people into doing what they want, and any notions of justice or fairness are window dressing. That's how power actually works. It doesn't care about good faith vs bad faith arguments, and we can't limit ourselves to only using our institutions within their veneer of rule of law when taking on powerful, exclusively self-interested, and completely antisocial institutions with no such scruples.
When the writer Ryan Broderick joined Substack in 2020, it felt, he told me, like an “oasis.” The email-newsletter platform gave him a direct line to his readers.
Everyone is going to be so pumped when they learn about websites. The media has reported on substack this way since they began and it's so fucking stupid. It's a website with an email list as a service. Substack is nothing.
Yeah, as always, the devil is in the details. For now I think that we need a simple and clear articulation of the main idea. In the exceedingly unlikely event that it ever gets traction, I look forward to hammering out the many nuances.
It's not a solution, but as a mitigation, I'm trying to push the idea of an internet right of way into the public consciousness. Here's the thesis statement from my write-up:
I propose that if a company wants to grow by allowing open access to its services to the public, then that access should create a legal right of way. Any features that were open to users cannot then be closed off so long as the company remains operational. We need an Internet Rights of Way Act, which enforces digital footpaths. Companies shouldn't be allowed to create little paths into their sites, only to delete them, forcing guests to pay if they wish to maintain access to the networks that they built, the posts that they wrote, or whatever else it is that they were doing there.
As I explain in the link, rights of way already exist for the physical world, so it's easily explained to even the less technically inclined, and give us a useful legal framework for how they should work.
theluddite @ theluddite @lemmy.ml Posts 12Comments 348Joined 2 yr. ago
This is nowhere near the worst on a technical level, but it was my first big fuck up. Some 12+ years ago, I was pretty junior at a very big company that you've all heard of. We had a feature coming out that I had entirely developed almost by myself, from conception to prototype to production, and it was getting coverage in some relatively well-known trade magazine or blog or something (I don't remember) that was coming out the next Monday. But that week, I introduced a bug in the data pipeline code such that, while I don't remember the details, instead of adding the day's data, it removed some small amount of data. No one noticed that the feature was losing all its data all week because it still worked (mostly) fine, but by Monday, when the article came out, it looked like it would work, but when you pressed the thing, nothing happened. It was thankfully pretty easy to fix but I went from being congratulated to yelled at so fast.