volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@oblomov I mean, I would suggest that quality posters need to stay there to keep making sure there are quality posts on the site.

Build up, don't tear down.

It's really silly to see people simultaneously quality posters to leave and then complaining that all the quality posters have left.

@KimPerales yeah, that'll do it.

@wjmaggos It is literally impossible not to have an algorithm. Even chronological is an algorithm. In this place it's not only an algorithm involving chronology but also the feeds that go to different instances.

So yeah, original Twitter had an algorithm.

But I also don't think original Twitter was as great for news as you think. All of the boosting under such a system just skews reporting toward confirmation bias, which I don't think is great for news.

@natural20 you say "Force sensitive person" but it's a big thing that Ahsoka seemed to undermine that by saying that everyone was force sensitive.

That was a big issue I had with the series.

@wjmaggos why?

Different people find different things interesting, and that's a good thing!

@wjmaggos so you see the funniness in the phrase that breaking news will get more boosts eventually? 🙂

@chrisgeidner you say this is "honestly very confusing" but I don't find it confusing at all, honestly.

I don't think it's properly described as a fake majority opinion. A *rejected* majority opinion, sure, but the judge's point that he was including it in the interest of time with express note that it wasn't taken up is pretty understandable and reasonable.

So I think this situation was clear, and I'm not sure why you think it's so hard to understand.

@wjmaggos well it's tricky because with so many hostile to algorithms other than chronological sorting, it's hard to prioritize real breaking news ahead of someone complaining about the lack of RT function, or someone wishing the world a good morning for some reason.

@watson@freeatlantis.com I mean, my instinct is that you're spinning a really kooky conspiracy theory with no bearing on reality...

@rwg this is really interesting, and I hope you're taking an objective, historical approach to the work.

You know, this is what happened, and it's an interesting tale of human dynamics, conflicting interests, maybe some game theory, and it can teach lessons for other projects.

I wouldn't want the work to veer into assuming the outcome was better or worse than counterfactuals. There are serious criticisms of AP, and the link touched on some issues with outcomes.

So rather than praising or criticizing, it strikes me that this is important for the lessons it can teach regardless of how it worked out.

@natural20 that's exactly the kind of thing that I'd say ruins the story, though.

It's like magic without limits so plots have no real impact or meaning or challenge.

No, it's better that the Force does have limits, and challenges for different people to use it, so that we have set up interesting plots as characters have to grapple with that reality.

Otherwise it's all just rather superficial and especially unrealistic, even if we suspend disbelief enough to imagine that some have such abilities.

@antares but that goes back to the original post.

It said they might delay the transition to the thing they don't make, but they DO make it, just deeper in the supply chain.

So the picture being painted doesn't really hold together.

And that's not even getting into the electricity pathway to hydrogen, which the companies supposedly aren't involved in, so.

@argv_minus_one@mstdn.party no, no, if customers are suffering then it means they're paying to suffer, which doesn't make much sense.

If they're keeping their money then they're not customers.

And then they have money that they could pay you for a service that doesn't involve their suffering.

And that's how you compete.

@shrikant but this is the point where I start to feel like, Wait, what are we talking about again?

Is the AI going to engage in enshittification so so many say, or is their work going to be satisfactory? Are the AIs going to be indistinguishable from humans even in the "Mom wants to chat with Gloria about her kids while checking out" sense? Are we talking complete replacements for literal humans?

Because I don't actually think the last is on the table at this point, and the last is quite the opposite from the first.

I don't actually believe it's realistic that the robot is doing ALL possible tasks and outcompeting humans at all possible tasks.

And if they are, well, then we're moving into a phase of society where society can have better goods and services without anyone having to work, which is quite a shift.

@shrikant I'm in the world where I know an awful lot of restaurant industry workers who aren't exactly loving how hard their jobs are :)

Give them a robot to bus tables, roll napkins, manage the books, put in orders to restock the bar, and they'll be free to spend more time engaging with customers and doing the parts of the work that they actually do like.

And customers stand to benefit from that as well.

Think of AI as taking over tasks, not jobs. A ton of tasks stand to be replaced, yep, leaving the humans able to focus on the parts they'd rather be doing.

@shrikant but if the customers don't care, then they won't be suffering.

This gets into the age old issues of trying to push the general public into higher standards and more cultured preferences.

Like, why are people settling for Marvel movies and the Super Bowl when they can be watching opera and reading Shakespeare?

For that matter, why are people settling for the cruddy user experience that is Mastodon?

At some point it's worth remembering that there's a diversity of taste out there, and that's not necessarily a bad thing.

If people want crap and I'm not particularly interested in giving them crap, well I probably should find something better to do anyway.

@argv_minus_one@mstdn.party you said customers will suffer.

It doesn't matter how cheaply a machine can run, it shouldn't be hard to outcompete an offer of suffering.

You seem to be overlooking the most important part of the equation here, the value offered to the customer.

If I offer to punch you in the nose, and assuming you don't want that, does it really matter how cheaply I can punch you in the nose using a robot?

You proposed that customers will suffer. Well, offer them something better than suffering.