I think the future is going to be fake social media websites that tailor make all the content to your preferences. Aka LLM generated content.
You know how in Minecraft (and other games) how they have infinite maps? You just keep on exploring and the game generates new lands for you to explore? That is what the future of social networks will be.
Except that's not a social network. If it was open about what it was, its nature would undermine the main reason for using a social network.
Probably the only people who'd bother to engage are some geeks who've confused themselves into thinking a social network is just about generating messages for consumption.
Also, such a fake social network might be able to replicate BS political slapfights, but I'd think it would fall on its face when touching on anything that's not repetitive or baroquely self-referential. It'd get old fast.
Yeah, you aren't wrong, but how do you know that you are talking to an actual human right now and not a GPT powered hackernews bot? Like you are assuming I'm a real person, but you don't know it. You can't ever really know it.
> Yeah, you aren't wrong, but how do you know that you are talking to an actual human right now and not a GPT powered hackernews bot?
Because it's 2023, and GPT, while impressive in its way, still sucks. Even if you generated the text with GPT, you're still operating it and I'm interacting with you.
> Like you are assuming I'm a real person, but you don't know it. You can't ever really know it.
That's a little sophomoric. No one needs to know with perfect clarity. If bots ever get good enough and prevalent enough most social media users are fake, there will be a little lag as people figure it out. Then people who keep using social media will get mocked for wasting their time, and it will die.
Dude, your argument against it was 1) that a technology that has been public for six months isn't perfect
2) that smart people would just know that comments were not being made by humans.
I truly don't understand how you are interpreting this conversation.
> I truly don't understand how you are interpreting this conversation.
That makes sense, because you're pretty badly misunderstanding me (which your summary makes perfectly clear).
I mean, 1 was part of a direct answer to your own question "how do you know that you are talking to an actual human right now and not a GPT powered hackernews bot." Emphasis mine. Your 2 is just a total misunderstanding. Hint: I was talking about social knowledge, not "smart people just knowing" in any particular case.
You should worry about everything you interact with, not just text on some small Internet forum. After all, you could be the star of your own reality-tv Truman Show, and everything you see is made up for the benefit of a TV show that you're the star of, but aren't privity to? How do you know your mom and dad aren't just hired actors along with all the people you interact with? Maybe I'm secretly being paid by producers of a TV show to write this comment to provoke you into discovering the truth of your existence for the season finale?
I think the difference is that the cost of faking my family is extremely high, but the cost of spewing comments on the internet went to basically 0.
I think it is pretty widely accepted that corporations and governments already conduct astroturfing, but those operations were limited in that you had to open an office somewhere and pay people hourly to write propaganda. Now you only need an API key.
I'd be really surprised if there are not conversations happening right now at Facebook and its competitors about injecting generated comments into people's feeds to increase engagement.
I think the point of social media is to sell ads. I'm not trying to say all forms of social media will go away, but I think we are headed toward a dystopian future
I don't understand why you are suggesting Airbnb isn't "fair" demand on the housing stock.
Also it is really hard to believe that Airbnb is a meaningful impact on housing prices outside of certain touristy locales. My suburban neighborhood has had 5+ offers on every house that has come for sale in the last year and there are no Airbnbs in the neighborhood and only two within a five mile radius.
The only real answer is to build more--not depend on the government to artificially constrict supply by regulating vacation rentals.
I don't think this kind of dichotomous thinking generally holds with complicated real-world problems. They are almost always a confluence of multiple "answers".
E.g., yes, housing supply is probably part of the solution. But so may be integrating policies that disincentivize viewing something necessary (like housing) as an investment asset.
I'm saying housing is a unique form of 'investment' for a variety of reasons. For one, it's an 'investment' that most people can't exit from because you have to live somewhere. It's also an investment that is relatively illiquid. It's also an investment where the majority of Americans wealth (about 70%, I believe) is tied up in, from which they borrow against. It's also a necessity.
These all combine to create an incentive for a bunch of wonky policies that can have negative societal consequences, like artificially inflating the price of housing. So, yes, the fact that it is considered a good financial investment is also part of the reason it creates societal problems.
It would be like artificially constraining the production of food so that those who have 'investments' in food companies can make more profit. Obviously good for the investors, probably less so with society as a whole. Now add a bunch of constraints like the friction of buying/selling those assets etc. and the problem gets worse.
I thought the map for "Portland" was going to be an interesting split between the city in Oregon vs the city in Maine, but it didn't even recognize the city in Maine. I think it showed up fourth on its list losing out to two cities in Midwestern states.
Reading your post, it sounds like you are under the impression that your HOA is required to vote electronically, but my reading of your copy pasted law is that you are not prevented from electronically voting. That is, you "may vote electronically" not you "are required to vote electronically".
I'm not a lawyer, but it sounds like you are going down a rocky road (forcing technology on an unwilling audience) because you think you are supposed to. The easiest solution is probably just to get a lawyer to confirm your understanding of the law and potentially just keep voting the way you are currently voting.
YouTube music is awful. I hate how everything is organized. Is it even possible to search your library? I haven't figured out the actual point of adding anything to your library because searching takes you to all available options every time. And it is never sorted the way you want. For example, if you search an artist, you get their top three albums, but then you have to click into it and search for the one album you want to listen to. I'd rather the top three albums be the ones I have in my library, not their most popular current albums. I don't listen to as wide of variety of music as I did in college and I think a lot of that is yt music makes search so difficult that I can't get to any stuff in have not listened to recently.
I remember thinking how disappointed I was when I moved from Microsoft's Zune to play music. Now I'd be happy just to get play music back
Python is not tightly coupled to data science by any stretch of the imagination. The data science parts of the language have no impact on the other use cases. It isn't like someone is forcing you to use a pandas dataframe as the backend to your Django website.
You know how in Minecraft (and other games) how they have infinite maps? You just keep on exploring and the game generates new lands for you to explore? That is what the future of social networks will be.