Conversation

People vastly overestimate leverage of design and the abilities of companies to actually make emergent behaviors conform to their intentions. Hanlon's razor. If you think the platforms are designed and run by people who are evil masterminds AND incompetent bumblers, think again.
Quote Tweet
Thought. Seems likely that @vgr underrates the fact that graph mind is mostly designed/directed by corporations (= emergent AI prior art) to maximize engagement for $$$. In which case Q6 answer is: the graph mind truly does not & cannot care about solving humanistic problems.
Show this thread
4
50
One reason I increasingly distrust waldenponders is that this simultaneous attribution of mastermind evilness AND bumbling incompetence to adversaries is a sign of cult-like and authoritarian thinking.
Replying to
It's a recurrent theme in tech criticism, and I think driven by desire to create an enemy compelling enough to motivate true believers. It is much harder to simply treat them as just regular people running regular businesses, trying to make $. Bond villains are more fun.
1
18
Designers are as subject to emergent dynamics as users. But let's also talk about how any particular notion of "humanistic" values is highly specific and driven by a typically bad-faith assumed consensus. I am NOT likely to agree with you about what "humanistic values" are.
2
13
There are going to be a 1000 different ideas of "humanistic values" that platforms "should" conform to. How do we sort them out? Maybe we need *gasp* a systemic interaction model where all actors can contend? Sure, some have more agency than others. Welcome to humanity.
1
3
I'd rather trust my ability to surf the emergent behavior created by algorithms whose effects are only partly within the design-intention authority of owners, and figure out how to harmonize with it.
1
6
Don't forget: things like employment and ownership status matter far less than actual agency. A special interest group that uses shaming and pressure tactics to enforce a UI or data rights feature is just another group of engineers pushing their algorithms onto the rest of us.
1
9
The fact that they are on paper "solving" for something other than money or engagement does NOT mean they are morally superior, better at designing emergent effects, or actually capable of acting in the emergent best interests of everybody.
1
10
If the solution to "bad" algorithms is "good" algorithms by people who set themselves up as the arbiters of good and bad, we're right back where we started, having to decide whether or not we trust makers of algorithms. Checks and balances are nice, but there are no saints here.
2
12
This is what increasingly pisses me off: the presumptive, holier-than-thou patronizing assumption that "we know better than you who is good and evil, and let us, the good guys, play policeman and rein in the capitalists, the bad guys, who only want your $ and engagement"
5
15
Not all the people who do this are bad-faith grifters running protection rackets using shaming and pressure. But enough are, and they are often worse than platform execs who are at least transparently in it for market cap/stock price. They don't pretend to be messiahs saving us.
4
6
Full disclosure, I have done/do consulting work for tech companies that are often targets of such criticism, and know a few senior execs personally. They aren't saints either. But don't forget, critics ALSO have $ and a careers in the backlash cottage industry to protect
1
5
Most of the people who weigh in on these debates are casual drive-by commenters with no skin in the game. But anyone who consistently, seriously, and diligently argues on one side or the other is coming *from somewhere*. Their views aren't disinterested views from nowhere.
1
8
The NYT, the New Yorker, various people with long-established consulting careers around this stuff. A lot of what they say is solid, credible criticism that should be taken into account. But it's important not to assume they're somehow operating on a higher moral plane.
1
4
In particular, be wary of anyone who presumes to speak for your interests, *but asks for nothing from you in return*. "If you're not paying, you're the product" logic can be applied to non-profit do-gooders as well. Your volunteered outrage is an asset others may be monetizing.
1
16
Again, I want to emphasize: many of the people in the criticism cottage industry are good people, sincere, and acting in pursuit of WYSIWYG intentions in the genuine belief they are doing good. It's just that that doesn't mean they are effective or can be taken at face value.
2
4
Apologies if all this is very obscure. A lot of it is subtweeting from the POV of having seen the other side of several of these actual battles close up, at multiple companies, and I have not been hugely impressed with the ethics/integrity of the backlash crowd.
14