This is not the future

Yes, game theory is not a predictive model but an explanatory/general one. Additionally not everything is a game, as in statistics, not everything has a probability curve. They can be applied speculatively to great effect, but they are ultimately abstract models.

A practical formula:

1) Identify coordination failures that lock us into bad equilibria, e.g. it's impossible to defect from the online ads model without losing access to a valuable social graph

2) Look for leverage that rewrites the payoffs for a coalition rather than for one individual: right-to-repair laws, open protocols, interoperable standards, fiduciary duty, reputation systems, etc.

3) Accept that heroic non-participation is not enough. You must engineer a new Schelling point[1] that makes a better alternative the obvious move for a self-interested majority

TLDR, think in terms of the algebra of incentives, not in terms of squeaky wheelism and moral exhortation

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_point_(game_theory)

>I think cooperative game theory[1] better models the dynamics of the real world.

If cooperative coalitions to resist undesirable abusive technology models the real world better, why is the world getting more ads? (E.g. One of the author's bullet points was, "Ads are not inevitable.")

Currently in the real world...

- Ads frequency goes up : more ad interruptions in tv shows, native ads embedded in podcasts, sponsors segments in Youtube vids, etc

- Ads spaces goes up : ads on refrigerator screens, gas pumps touch screens, car infotainment systems, smart TVs, Google Search results, ChatGPT UI, computer-generated virtual ads in sports broadcasts overlayed on courts and stadiums, etc

What is the cooperative coalition that makes "ads not inevitable"?

I'll just take the very first example on the list, Internet-enabled beds.

Absolutely a cooperative game - nobody was forced to build them, nobody was forced to finance them, nobody was forced to buy them. this were all willing choices all going in the same direction. (Same goes for many of the other examples)

Because the models aren't sophisticated enough (yet). There's no voodoo here.

I'm always surprised how many 'logical' tech people shy away from simple determinism, given how obvious a deterministic universe becomes the more time you spend in computer science, and seem to insist there's some sort of metaphysical influence out there somewhere we'll never understand. There's not.

Math is almost the definition of inevitability. Logic doubly so.

Once there's a sophisticated enough human model to decipher our myriad of idiosyncrasies, we will all be relentlessly manipulated, because it is human nature to manipulate others. That future is absolutely inevitable.

Might as well fall into the abyss with open arms and a smile.

I don't think OP claimed that. There is no conflict between not able to formulate the true model vs the existence of that actual model.

Just because we weren't able to discover all of the law of physics, doesn't mean they don't apply to us.

I think you've missed the point.

The concept of Game Theory is inevitable because it's studying an existing phenomenon. Whether or not the researchers of Game Theory correctly model that is irrelevant to whether the phenomenon exists or not.

The models such as Prisoner's Dilemma are not inevitable though. Just because you have two people doesn't mean they're in a dilemma.

---

To rephrase this, Technology is inevitable. A specific instance of it (ex. Generative AI) is not.

> Game theory makes a lot of simplifying assumptions.

It does because it's trying to get across the point that although the world seems impossibly complex it's not. Of course it is in fact _almost_ impossibly complex.

This doesn't mean that it's redundant for more complex situations, it only means that to increase its accuracy you have to deepen its depth.

We are the levees in your metaphor and we have agency. The problem is not that one founder does something before another and gains an advantage. The problem is the millions of people who buy or use the harmful thing they create - and that we all have control over. If we continue down this path we'll end up at free will vs determinism and I choose to believe the future is not inevitable.

> what is definitely not inevitable is the monetization of human attention. It's only a matter of policy. Without it the incentives to make Tiktok would have been greatly reduced, if even economically possible at all.

This is not a new thing. TV monetizes human attention. Tiktok is just an evolution of TV. And Tiktok comes from China which has a very different society. If short-form algo slop video can thrive in both liberal democracies and a heavily censored society like China, than it's probably somewhat inevitable.

> The only way I can get to the "crypto is inevitable" take relies on the scams and fraud as the fundamental drivers.

The idea of a cheap, universal, anonymous digital currency itself is old (e.g. eCash and Neuromancer in the '80s, Snow Crash and Cryptonomicon in the '90s).

It was inevitable that someone would try implementing it once the internet was widespread - especially as long as most banks are rent-seeking actors exploiting those relying on currency exchanges, as long as many national currencies are directly tied to failing political and economic systems, and as long as the un-banking and financially persecution of undesirables was a threat.

Doing it so extremely decentralized and with a the whole proof-of-work shtick tacked on top was not inevitable and arguably not a good way to do it, nor the cancer that has grown on top of it all...

I think you could say it's inevitable because of the size of both the good AND bad opportunities. Agree with you and the original point of the article that there COULD be a better way. We are reaping tons of bad outcomes across social media, crypto, AI, due to poor leadership(from every side really).

Imagine new coordination technology X. We can remove any specific tech reference to remove prior biases. Say it is a neutral technology that could enable new types of positive coordination as well as negative.

3 camps exist.

A: The grifters. They see the opportunity to exploit and individually gain.

B: The haters. They see the grifters and denigrate the technology entirely. Leaving no nuance or possibility for understanding the positive potential.

C: The believers. They see the grift and the positive opportunity. They try and steer the technology towards the positive and away from the negative.

The basic formula for where the technology ends up is -2(A)-(B) +C. It's a bit of a broad strokes brush but you can probably guess where to bin our current political parties into these negative categories. We need leadership which can identify and understand the positive outcomes and push us towards those directions. I see very little strength anywhere from the tech leaders to politicians to the social media mob to get us there. For that, we all suffer.

> These things don't have any utility otherwise and no reason to exist outside of those.

Lol. Permissionless payments certainly have utility. Making it harder for governments to freeeze/seize your assets has utility. Buying stuff the government disallows, often illegitimately, has value. Currency that can't be inflated has value.

Any outside of pure utility, they have tons of ideological reason to exist outside scams and fraud. Your inability to imagine or dismissal of those is telling as to your close-mindedness.

I've got a hypothesis that the reason short-form video like TikTok became dominant is because of the decline in reading instruction (eg. usage of whole-word instruction over phonics) that started in 1998-2000. The timing largely lines up: the rise of video content started around 2013, just as these kids were entering their teenage years. Media has significant economies of scale and network effects (i.e. it is much more profitable to target the lowest common denominator than any niche group), and so if you get a large number of teenagers who have difficulty with reading, media will adjust to provide them content that they can consume effortlessly.

Anecdotally, I hear lots of people talking about the short attention span of Zoomers and Gen Alpha (which they define as 2012+; I'd actually shift the generation boundary to 2017+ for the reasons I'm about to mention). I don't see that with my kid's 2nd-grade classmates: many of them walk around with their nose in a book and will finish whole novels. They're the first class after phonics was reintroduced in the 2023-2024 kindergarten year; every single kid knew how to read by the end of kindergarten. Basic fluency in skills like reading and math matters.

Even if that's true, that sub-minute videos are not the apex content, that only goes to prove inevitability. Every idea will be tested and measured; the best-performing ones will survive. There can't be any coordination or consensus like "we shouldn't have that" - the only signal is, "is this still the most performant medium + algorithm mix?"

Have you seen YouTube's front-page? It's pretty much 20-40min videos full of fluff.

>Art is an expression of human emotion

Yet humans are the ones enacting an AI for art (of some kind). Is not therefore not art because even though a human initiated the process, the machine completed it?

If you argue that, then what about kinetic sculptures, what about pendulum painting, etc? The artist sets them in motion but the rest of the actions are carried out by something nonhuman.

And even in a fully autonomous sense; who are we to define art as being artefacts of human emotion? How typically human (tribalism). What's to say that an alien species doesn't exist, somewhere...out there. If that species produces something akin to art, but they never evolved the chemical reactions that we call emotions...I suppose it's not art by your definition?

And what if that alien species is not carbon based? If it therefore much of a stretch to call art that an eventual AGI produces art?

My definition of art is a superposition of everything and nothing is art at the same time; because art is art in the eye of the arts beholder. When I look up at the night sky; that's art, but no human emotion produced that.

No doubt, but if your Starcraft experience against AI was "somehow" exactly same with AI, gave you the same joy, and you cannot even say whether it was AI or other players, does that matter? I get this is kind of Truman Show-ish scenario, but does it really matter? If the end results are same, does it still matter? If it does, why? I get the emotional aspect of it, but in practice you wouldn't even know. Now is AI at that point for any of these, possibly not. We can tell AI right now in many interactions and art forms, because it's hollow, and it's just "perfectly mediocre".

It's kind of the sci-fi cliche, can you have feelings for an AI robot? If you can what does that mean.

On the other hand, I prefer playing video games against AI because human skill disparity almost always ruins PvP. Though really I simply prefer co-op.

So are photos that are edited via Photoshop not art? Are they not art if they were taken on a digital camera? What about electronic music?

You could argue all these things are not art because they used technology, just like AI music or images... no? Where does the spectrum of "true art" begin and end?

I think your view makes sense. On the other hand, Flash revolutionized animation online by allowing artists to express their ideas without having to exhaustively render every single frame, thanks to algorithmic tweening. And yeah, the resulting quality was lower than what Disney or Dreamworks could do. But the ten thousand flowers that bloomed because a wall came down for people with ideas but not time utterly redefined huge swaths of the cultural zeitgeist in a few short years.

I strongly suspect automatic content synthesis will have similar effect as people get their legs under how to use it, because I strongly suspect there are even more people out there with more ideas than time.

I hear the complaints about AI being "weird" or "gross" now and I think about the complaints about Newgrounds content back in the day.

I see what you're getting at, but I think a better framing would be: there's an implicit understand amongst humans that, in the case of things ostensibly human-created, a human found it worth creating. If someone put in the effort to write something, it's because they believed it worth reading. It's part of the social contract that makes it seem worth reading a book or listening to a lecture even if you don't receive any value from the first word.

LLMs and AI art flip this around because potentially very little effort went into making things that potentially take lots of effort to experience and digest. That doesn't inherently mean they're not valuable, but it does mean there's no guarantee that at least one other person out there found it valuable. Even pre-AI it wasn't an iron-clad guarantee of course -- copy-writing, blogspam, and astroturfing existed long before LLMs. But everyone hates those because they prey on the same social contract that LLMs do, except in a smaller scale, and with a lower effort-in:effort-out ratio.

IMO though, while AI enables malicious / selfish / otherwise anti-social behavior at an unprecedented scale, it also enables some pretty cool stuff and new creative potential. Focusing on the tech rather than those using it to harm others is barking up the wrong tree. It's looking for a technical solution to a social problem.

I don't know if I'm misinterpreting the word "influence", but low-effort internet memes have a lot more cultural impact than a lot of high-effort art. Also there's botnets, which influence political voting behaviour.

Maybe they're just trying to say that robo taxis look like the future, not bike taxis?

the words themselves have influence, regardless of who spoke them.

Well, the LLMs were trained with data that required human effort to write, it's not just random noise. So the result they can give is, indirectly and probabilistically regurgitated, human effort.

That's pretty much what they said about photographs at first. I don't think you'll find a lot of people who argue that there's no art in photography now.

Asking a machine to draw a picture and then making no changes? It's still art. There was a human designing the original input. There was human intention.

And that's before they continue to use the AI tools to modify the art to better match their intention and vision.

I admire volunteer work, but I don't think we should focus too hard on paths forward that summarize to "the volunteers need to work harder". If we like what they're doing we show find ways to make it more likely to happen.

For instance, we could forbid taxpayer money from being spent on proprietary software and on hardware that is insufficiently respectful of its user, and we could require that 50% of the money not spent on the now forbidden software now be spent on sponsorships of open source contributors whose work is likely to improve the quality of whatever open alternatives are relevant.

Getting Microsoft and Google out of education would be huge re: denormalizing accepting eulas and letting strangers host things you rely on.

France and Germany are investing in open source (https://chipp.in/news/france-and-germany-launch-docs-an-open...), though perhaps not as aggressively as I've proposed. Let's join them.

You may be saving money but wood smoke is very much harmful to your lungs and heart according to the American Lung and American Heart Associations + the EPA. There's a good reason why we've adopted modern heating technologies. They may have other problems but particulate pollution is not one of them.

> For people with underlying heart disease, a 2017 study in the journal Environmental Research linked increased particulate air pollution from wood smoke and other sources to inflammation and clotting, which can predict heart attacks and other heart problems.

> A 2013 study in the journal Particle and Fibre Toxicology found exposure to wood smoke causes the arteries to become stiffer, which raises the risk of dangerous cardiac events. For pregnant women, a 2019 study in Environmental Research connected wood smoke exposure to a higher risk of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, which include preeclampsia and gestational high blood pressure.

https://www.heart.org/en/news/2019/12/13/lovely-but-dangerou...

Because the ones pushing it down your throats are trying to capture the entire market and get you to adopt their AI instead of a competitor.

The industrial revolution was pushed down the throats of a lot of people who were sufficiently upset by the developments that they invented communism, universal suffrage*, modern* policing, health and safety laws, trade unions, recognisably modern* state pensions, the motor car (because otherwise we'd be knee-deep in horse manure), zoning laws, passports, and industrial-scale sewage pumping.

I do wonder who the AI era's version of Marx will be, what their version of the Communist Manifesto will say. IIRC, previous times this has been said this on HN, someone pointed out Ted Kaczynski's manifesto.

* Policing and some pensions and democracy did exist in various fashions before the industrial revolution, but few today would recognise their earlier forms as good enough to deserve those names today.

Your introductory paragraph comes across very much like "people who want to change the status quo are political and people who want to maintain it are not"; which is clearly nonsense. "how things are is how they should be" is as much of an ideology, just a less conspicuous one given the existing norms.

>Is my choice to write some boiler plate code using gen AI truly political?

I am much closer to agreeing with your take here, but as you recognise, there are lots of political aspects to your actions, even if they are not conscious. Not intentionally being political doesn't mean you are not making political choices; there are many more that your AI choice touches upon; privacy issues, wealth distribution, centralisation, etc etc. Of course these choices become limited by practicalities but they still exist.

I don't think you're wrong so much as you've tread into some semantic muddy water. What did the OP mean by 'inevitable', 'political' or 'everything'?. A lot hangs on the meaning. I lot of words could be written defending one interpretation over another and the chance of changing anyone's mind on the topic seems slim.

> Sure, lots of things are or can be, but whenever I see this idea, it usually comes from people who have a very specific mindset that's leaning further in one direction on a political spectrum and is pushing their ideology.

This is also my core reservation against the idea.

I think that the belief only holds weight in a society that is rife with opposing interpretations about how it ought to be managed. The claim itself feels like an attempt to force someone toward the interests of the one issuing it.

> Is my choice to write some boiler plate code using gen AI truly political? Is it political because of power usage and ongoing investment in gen AI?

Apparently yes it is. This is all determined by your impressions on generative AI and its environmental and economic impact. The problem is that most blog posts are signaling toward a predefined in-group either through familiarity with the author or by a preconceived belief about the subject where it’s assumed that you should already know and agree with the author about these issues. And if you don’t you’re against them.

For example—I don’t agree that everything is inevitable. But I as I read the blog post in question I surmised that it’s an argument against the idea that human beings are not at the absolute will of technological progress. And I can agree with that much. So this influences how I interpret the claim “nothing is inevitable” in addition to the title of the post and in conjunction with the rest of the article (and this all is additionally informed by all the stuff I’m trying to express to you that surrounds this very paragraph).

I think that this is speaks to the present problem of how “politics” is conflated to additionally refer to one’s worldview, culture, etc., in and of itself instead of something distinct but not necessarily inseparable from these things.

Politics ought to indicate toward a more comprehensive way of seeing the world but this isn’t the case for most people today and I suspect that many people who claim to have comprehensive convictions are only 'virtue signaling’.

A person with comprehensive convictions about the world and how humans ought to function in it can better delineate the differences and necessary overlap between politics and other concepts that run downstream from their beliefs. But what do people actually believe in these days? That they can summarize in a sentence or two and that can objectively/authoritatively delineate an “in-group” from an “out-group” and that informs all of their cultural, political, environmental and economic considerations, and so on...

Online discourse is being cleaved into two sides vying for digital capital over hot air. The worst position you can take is a critical one that satisfies neither opponent.

You should keep reading all blog posts with a critical eye toward the appeals embedded within the medium. Or don’t read them at all. Or read them less than you read material that affords you with a greater context than the emotional state that the author was in when they wrote the post before they go back to releasing software communiques.

There's many more. Aeroderivative gas turbines are not exactly new, and they have shorter lead times than regular gas turbines right now, so everybody getting their hands on any has been willing to buy them.

The MacOs settings redesign really bothered me too. Maybe it's the 20+ years of muscle memory, or maybe the new one really is that bad, but I find myself clicking around excessively and eventually giving up and using search. I'm with you here.

I personally agree with everything you say, and am equally frustrated with (years later) not being able to find MacOS settings quickly - though part of that's due to searching within settings being terrible. Screen mirroring is the worst offender for me, too.

However, I support ~80 non-technical users for whom that update was a huge benefit. They're familiar with iOS on their phones, so the new interface is (whaddya know) intuitive for them. (I get fewer support calls, so it's of indirect benefit to me, too.) I try to let go of my frustration by reminding myself that learning new technology is (literally) part of my job description, but it's not theirs.

That doesn't excuse all the "moving the deck chairs" changes - Tahoe re-design: why? - but I think Apple's broad philosophy of ignoring power users like us and aligning settings interfaces was broadly correct.

Funny story: when my family first got a Windows computer (3.1, so... 1992 or '93?) my first reaction was "this sucks. Why can't I just tell the computer what to do anymore?" But, obviously, GUIs are the only way the vast majority will ever be able to interact with a device - and, you know, there are lots of tasks for which a visual interface is objectively better. I'd appreciate better CLI access to MacOS settings: a one-liner that mirrors to the most recently-connected display would save me so much fumbling. Maybe that's AppleScript-able? If I can figure it out I'll share here.

... Did you just complain about modern technology taking power away from users only to post an AI generated song about it? You know, the thing taking away power from musicians and filling up all modern digital music libraries with garbage?

There's some cognitive dissonance on display there that I'm actually finding it hard to wrap my head around.

[dead]