- This really gets at the heart of my instinctive dislike of how LLMs are being deployed. A core feature of computers, and tools in general, is reliability. I like software because you can set something up, run it, and (ideally) know that it will do the same job the same way each subsequent time you run it. I want a button that is clearly labeled, and when pressed, does a specific thing, acting like a limb, an extension of my will. I do not, in almost all cases, want my computer to be another distinct entity that I conduct social interactions with.
Maybe people got used to computers being unreliable and unpredictable as the UIs we shipped became more distracting, less learnable, always shifting and hiding information, popping up suggestions and displaying non-deterministic-seeming behavior. We trained users to treat their devices like unruly animals that they can never quite trust. So now the idea of a machine that embodies a more clever (but still unreliable) animal to wrangle sounds like a clear upgrade.
But as someone who's spent an inordinate amount of time tweaking and tuning his computing environment to prune out flakey components and fine-tune bindings and navigation, the idea of integrating a tool into my workflow that does amazing things but fails utterly even 1% of the time sounds like a nightmare, a sort of perpetual torture of low-grade anxiety.
- Humans are intensely social creatures, and are not adapted to feel the same way about things done invisibly versus visibly. That's how you end up in weird situations where people know the pervasive spying we're subjected to is wrong, but can't muster the will to act on it most of the time. It's cases like these where "voting with your wallet" produces terrible results. On one end you have organized groups of people figuring out chinks in human instincts, and on the other you have an unorganized mass of people doing what feels right or is expedient. You need coordination on both ends for competition and optimization to play out and find an acceptable compromise.
- I can't speak for everyone, but as a certified Firefox Preferrer my concern is this:
One day I will update my browser (after putting it off for a few days since the "restart Firefox to apply updates" button appears) and my user chrome will be moved around to make room for some new star/diamond-shaped button or additional side-panel, then I'll have to dig around in the settings or about:config to disable it and maybe even tweak my userChrome.css to accommodate it. From then on my list of things to do every time I set up Firefox on a new device will be one item longer, and I will feel ever more like my core tools do not have my interests at heart as I have to hack away at extraneous bits and pop open the hood to fiddle with knobs to get them to work normally without looking like a billboard for useless and half-abandoned features.
- > I wish schools didn’t force books onto children and make them think they hate reading for their whole lives
The problem is that if you don't force them, they never actually become literate enough to discover that reading is fun later in life.
- I suppose this is in the same realm as what some people are trying to do with WASM, creating a common execution environment? This is built on RISC-V instead though. I wish I knew more about the limitations/capabilities of each approach, but in any case a future where applications are built for a common VM seems like something we've been building to for a while, the modern web being the closest we've come.
- It doesn't. The law explicitly allows platform owners to require a verification/vetting process for applications, though it does limit the grounds on which Google is allowed to refuse to sign apps.
- My admittedly amateur reading of this is that while it does promote competition, it also explicitly allows what Apple is pulling in the EU with its signing/review requirements for non-App Store applications. So no need to circumvent, they still retain control over what code is allowed to run on iPhones, albeit subject to restrictions on what reasoning they're allowed to use to refuse to sign an app.
- What's happening is that politicians are slowly realizing that they no longer get punished for lying. At some point people got so worn down by more sophisticated half-truths that a large portion of the voter base just don't care about how true rhetoric is anymore. That plus the veil of civility that seems to prevent effective counter messaging mean lying blatantly is actually an effective strategy.
- > And who gets to decide which platforms count as 'social media'?
The voting public via their elected representatives, as with literally all laws.
- The contention is that the thing in question is harmful for minors and adults, albeit perhaps to different degrees. Also, to be clear, any ban should be enforced on the offering side, not the consumption side.
- It's way easier to justify banning social media entirely than banning it for under-sixteens. Paradoxically it infringes on freedom less, as it bans a type of business model for being too harmful rather than restricting people's rights to view and share information.
- > Anyone being able to directly reach anyone is a massive change from the gate-kept pre-internet media landscape.
Sure, but how are we supposed to disentangle this change from the concurrent growth of algorithmic feeds driving what people see? I have no doubt that democratization of communication would have social effects on its own, but we don't really know what those would be sans the simultaneous centralizing effect that dominant social media companies impose.
- > Why are there not yet a plethora of phones on the market that allow anyone to install their OS of choice?
There are technical reasons, but as ever the real underlying causes are incentives. Companies realized that the OS is a profit center, something they can use to influence user behavior to their benefit. Before the goal was to be a hardware company and offer the best hardware possible for cost. Now the goal is to own as large a slice of your life as possible. It's more of a social shift than a technological one. So why would a company, in this new environment, invest resources in making their hardware compatible with competing software environments? They'd be undercutting themselves.
That's not to say that attempts to build interoperability don't exist, just that they happen due to what are essentially activist efforts, the human factor, acting in spite of and against market forces. That doesn't tend to win out, except (rarely) in the political realm.
i.e. if you want interoperable mobile hardware you need a law, the market's not going to save you one this one.
- The fundamental problem here is a little broader than ads, but "ads" mostly cover it. The problem is the commoditization of human attention. The incentive to catch and sell attention is poisonous to all human endeavors. Some things need to grab your attention to fulfill their purpose, I'm not against the idea of something directing a person's attention. Where it becomes a problem is the murky line of that direction of attention being something that is bottled and sold, or otherwise used in the interest of the distracter rather than the distracted.
So ads that someone seeks out of their own volition? Fine. That's just marketing material, and falls in the same category as every product announcement, press release, etc. What if a product catalog is mixed in with coupons or other rewards? Not fine anymore, you've mixed up reward-seeking and information-seeking.
If someone means to direct their attention and gets distracted by an important notice, like "I mean to drive down this road, and the stop sign grabbed my attention," that's also fine. The information is relevant to the human and important for augmenting their intention. But if you download an app and try to do something, only to be met with a banner/popup/whatever informing you of other products on offer by the company? Well, they're not selling your attention to third parties, but they are monetizing it by taking your intention to use one product and attempting to redirect it into a potential purchase of another, so that's out. If you want, you can include a clearly-labelled "our other offerings" section in the app, out of the way, somewhere it would only be encountered by someone seeking it out.
Distracting people cannot be allowed to be one of the main drivers of our economy.
- To be clear, Dems are about as unlikely to do this as the Trump administration is. This is the sort of generational reform that requires a redefining of a political party.
- What's up with all the Arc clones? Did people really like the 3-tier tab sidebar thing that much?
- Passing io into things over and over seems annoying. Like, you can use io to get a File instance, then you need to pass io into its methods to read/write it? When would you ever make a File with one io implementation and want to manipulate it with another?
- It's one of the major issues of our era. Either society will be utterly captured, gradually and quietly, or there will be a reconning and ads will become tightly regulated along the lines of tobacco, sectioned off from polite society.
I consider the latter unlikely.
- Very cool. How does this deal with offline recipients? Do the messages just get dropped, or does Yggdrasil somehow store and deliver them?
I digress.