> Google Brain’s researchers wondered if they could keep YouTube users engaged for longer by steering them into different parts of YouTube, rather than feeding their existing interests. And they began testing a new algorithm that incorporated a different type of A.I., called reinforcement learning.<p>> The new A.I., known as Reinforce, was a kind of long-term addiction machine. It was designed to maximize users’ engagement over time by predicting which recommendations would expand their tastes and get them to watch not just one more video but many more.<p>It saddens me that so many of our smartest engineers are working on stuff like this.
This article just included Milton Friedman in a collage that seems to imply he was a conspiratorial, racist, misogynist? For those who might not know who he was, here is is Wiki entry. [1] He's a nobel prize winning economist and more or less critical reading to understand the logic behind much of our current economic processes, without casting judgement on the rightness or wrongness of said systems. He died 13 years ago. I am, for once, at a loss for words. That is just so unbelievably idiotic.<p>[1] - <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman</a>
While there are lots of "far right" channels out there, the majority of of the channels shown as screenshots have nothing to do with the "far right" or conspiracy theories.<p>Looks like their main crime is being conservative.
The author of this article and the YouTube creators he maligns, are both engaged in what Naval Ravikant describes as a “negative-sum prestige game”. The wealth benefits are nearly zero, and the fame is all negative. Stay in the positive-sum wealth game, fellow hackers; build, create, form meaningful life-long relationships.
The most interesting thing about the article is the admission by google that it wages an ai-powered war on humanity. Rather than paperclips, the most likely ai apocalypse scenario consists of an ai that modifies and breeds humans (what it considers humans) to do nothing but watch ads.
It's going to be hard to discuss the problem here if just mentioning it draws such a vast quantities of spam from the other Caleb Cains of the world.
For much of the article, the author portrays the “left-wing” as a bastion of sanity and moral good, a place where those who have been hijacked by the “right-wing” can be rehabilitated. Only at the very end does he pay passing lip-service to the possibility that there might be danger on both sides.<p>Is his characterization accurate?
So long as advertising revenue rules everything around me, I don't see this problem going away. Whether it's addictive right-wing videos or addictive left-wing videos, websites like YouTube will always prioritize "engagement" and adviews over safe and neutral and boring and reliable. Good times...
Quick Question: You are worried about right-ring rabbit holes, NYT.<p>If I watched a bunch of NYT, Vox, and other such videos, are you _sure_ I wouldn't be sucked into a Left-wing rabbit hole?
<a href="https://youtu.be/HWc5_4uKOg8" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/HWc5_4uKOg8</a><p>Molyneux's response to the article.
It's nothing new, is it? <a href="https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-rage/" rel="nofollow">https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-rage...</a> (2014)<p>How many Tumblr radicals are out there? Both sides are doing it.
This piece of "journalism" is very biased towards the left. I have noticed that the left has increasingly declared traditional right-wing values as "extremist" or "alt-right" to attempt to whittle down what being right-wing means.<p>An example of this is abortion. No matter how you feel about it, saying that abortion is murder and should be banned is now, in the NYT's opinion, "alt-right" and "extremist" even though about half of America believes so and this has always been a Right-wing value.<p>Not only this, but this type of article is why the Right calls NYT "fake news." Not necessarily "fake," but the bias is boldly visible. It doesn't help with media credibility - and then the Left wonders why the Right doesn't take newspapers seriously. For the record, I think "Fake news" is overused - but I do understand, reading this, why the Right loves bashing NYT.
I closed out of the article at the suggestion that the likes of Joe Rogan, Ben Shapiro, and Dave Rubin are "radicalizing" anyone. The New York times is such unbelievable garbage.
> When Mr. Cain first saw these videos, he dismissed them as left-wing propaganda. But he watched more, and he started to wonder if people like Ms. Wynn had a point. Her videos persuasively used research and citations to rebut the right-wing talking points he had absorbed.<p>Good to know apparently none of the right-wing videos used research or citations - only 'talking points'. Or at least it wasn't mentioned.