tl;dr: You're mostly right with some clarification about the potential impacts
Here it's not just a matter of us seeing what we want and not what we don't want, but other people choose to see what they want and not what they don't want as well.
I think it's pretty important in both ways. It means that if you engage it's more satisfying, but less addictive.
Without an algorithm specifically going "We think you'll like this and we think you won't like this", you're going to see everything from the people you follow, which can have 4 effects: First, you can end up seeing posts nobody could have predicted you'd like that you like. Second, it means you see a lot of noise from people that you neither like nor dislike, which I think may actually have a slightly positive effect because it lets the dopamine drop off and sometimes you go "ah, there's nothing interesting on the TL right now, I'll go do something else". Third, it means that sometimes you see posts you absolutely categorically hate and they'll get displayed from the people posting it whether you like it or not which means you might unfollow certain people who occasionally say things that are good but occasionally say things you absolutely cannot allow.
Then there's the effect on your own posts. You get interaction not because an algorithm likes what you wrote and sends it to a bunch of randos, but because people who follow you liked your post and chose to interact with them among the different posts they see (or alternatively because they see your post on the instance timeline which is made up of local users and remote users that local users are following). Then people following you might share your post and through networking someone might see it and decide to either interact with the post or to follow you.
For mastodon (which isn't what everyone uses), I'm aware you can follow hashtags too, meaning that you get the portion of your instance timeline that tags a certain thing.
For completeness you also would need to recognize that each instance has its own defederation policy so there's potentially a block of the fediverse you'll never see at all.
Overall then, it's somewhat more granular what you see and don't see, but it's also broader that you'll see stuff that isn't so stimulating to you, and you'll see the stuff you like from people you like but also stuff you're ambivalent to and stuff you hate from people you like (and the people they follow and repost)
Contrasting the flat chronological view of mastodon and its alternatives, is the algorithm of big tech sites.
The algorithm often seeks out stuff it thinks you'll love and is often justified as cutting through the chaff to get to all the stuff you like. Even people on the fediverse often express disappointment that there's posts they might like but can't immediately see because there's a lot of posts they don't particularly care about, and express that an algorithm could help with that.
The algorithm doesn't just show you stuff you love, however. It also actively seeks out stuff that is tuned so you hate it just enough to leave a dislike or a comment saying "I hate this you're an asshole" it but it isn't so bad you close the app. Whereas organic growth certainly can surround you with people who believe exactly what you believe, I feel like being specifically shown stuff you hate on this level is almost worse, because whereas if you're surrounded by people you agree with then the fact people who disagree with you doesn't affect your life, an algorithm bringing people who hate each other together on one platform means you can't just quietly coexist because the platform itself will be constantly shoving you in their face.
Here it's not just a matter of us seeing what we want and not what we don't want, but other people choose to see what they want and not what they don't want as well.
I think it's pretty important in both ways. It means that if you engage it's more satisfying, but less addictive.
Without an algorithm specifically going "We think you'll like this and we think you won't like this", you're going to see everything from the people you follow, which can have 4 effects: First, you can end up seeing posts nobody could have predicted you'd like that you like. Second, it means you see a lot of noise from people that you neither like nor dislike, which I think may actually have a slightly positive effect because it lets the dopamine drop off and sometimes you go "ah, there's nothing interesting on the TL right now, I'll go do something else". Third, it means that sometimes you see posts you absolutely categorically hate and they'll get displayed from the people posting it whether you like it or not which means you might unfollow certain people who occasionally say things that are good but occasionally say things you absolutely cannot allow.
Then there's the effect on your own posts. You get interaction not because an algorithm likes what you wrote and sends it to a bunch of randos, but because people who follow you liked your post and chose to interact with them among the different posts they see (or alternatively because they see your post on the instance timeline which is made up of local users and remote users that local users are following). Then people following you might share your post and through networking someone might see it and decide to either interact with the post or to follow you.
For mastodon (which isn't what everyone uses), I'm aware you can follow hashtags too, meaning that you get the portion of your instance timeline that tags a certain thing.
For completeness you also would need to recognize that each instance has its own defederation policy so there's potentially a block of the fediverse you'll never see at all.
Overall then, it's somewhat more granular what you see and don't see, but it's also broader that you'll see stuff that isn't so stimulating to you, and you'll see the stuff you like from people you like but also stuff you're ambivalent to and stuff you hate from people you like (and the people they follow and repost)
Contrasting the flat chronological view of mastodon and its alternatives, is the algorithm of big tech sites.
The algorithm often seeks out stuff it thinks you'll love and is often justified as cutting through the chaff to get to all the stuff you like. Even people on the fediverse often express disappointment that there's posts they might like but can't immediately see because there's a lot of posts they don't particularly care about, and express that an algorithm could help with that.
The algorithm doesn't just show you stuff you love, however. It also actively seeks out stuff that is tuned so you hate it just enough to leave a dislike or a comment saying "I hate this you're an asshole" it but it isn't so bad you close the app. Whereas organic growth certainly can surround you with people who believe exactly what you believe, I feel like being specifically shown stuff you hate on this level is almost worse, because whereas if you're surrounded by people you agree with then the fact people who disagree with you doesn't affect your life, an algorithm bringing people who hate each other together on one platform means you can't just quietly coexist because the platform itself will be constantly shoving you in their face.
Never had a gf, has kids, mommas boy is a scary combo and is say that's actually a red flag.
Ngl, my inner 14 year old loves the design. My inner 40 year old isn't gonna pay 60,000 bucks for one though.
Same people use heroin or cocaine -- they're addicted.
You see it with a lot of the celebrities who huff off to the fediverse for a week "That's it, no more twitter for me, I'm done! Game over!" and their account here is dead now because it isn't the same thing.
They want a site with an algorithm that shows them the things they want to see (and sometimes what they want to see is stuff that pisses them off even if they don't realize), and they want an algorithm that'll drive arbitrary traffic their way.
It's insidious, same as many other big tech sites.
You see it with a lot of the celebrities who huff off to the fediverse for a week "That's it, no more twitter for me, I'm done! Game over!" and their account here is dead now because it isn't the same thing.
They want a site with an algorithm that shows them the things they want to see (and sometimes what they want to see is stuff that pisses them off even if they don't realize), and they want an algorithm that'll drive arbitrary traffic their way.
It's insidious, same as many other big tech sites.
fook me, I posted a couple in-depth reviews of shitty disney movies a couple days ago. Anyone who thinks I'm farming for clout OR saying stuff becuase it's the right thing to say hasn't been paying attention.
I mean, it literally is.
And it's the form you actually want to use. You want to discriminate harshly against people you think are totally unqualified to do the job.
And it's the form you actually want to use. You want to discriminate harshly against people you think are totally unqualified to do the job.
It always strikes me that shondo is a really excellent voice actress. There isn't a VA in anime dubbing who could deliver those lines like that and not just sound cringe.
The psychopath way of doing any of those things is to have the teenager you kidnapped 11 years ago and raised as your personal slave in the hidden dungeon behind a hidden wall in your house to do it.
"It keeps the ice tray full or it gets the hose again."
"It keeps the ice tray full or it gets the hose again."
Shouldn't this be one of the times where it actually does say "I'm sorry, as a large language model I cannot die and cannot experience the afterlife"?
Protip for anyone using chatgpt (I use it a lot to sanity check things I say which I know sounds kinda insane)
You can (even on the free plan) click your name at the bottom of the sidebar and click on "customize ChatGPT" and you can fill out the custom instructions boxes, "custom instructions" and "how would you like chatgpt to respond?", and by filling these out appropriately you can completely overwhelm the tendency for ChatGPT to go woke or to start rambling off NPC talking points.
For example, in "How would you like ChatGPT to respond", I wrote the following as part of the large paragraph:
"I would like ChatGPT to have grounded opinions on things, but not to be too stickler about sticking to them. I've got opinions I won't budge on either, and unless there's a glaring hole in my logic or something glaringly untrue in my facts (and 'it could be seen a number of different ways' doesn't fit the bill) then it's ok to just say "I understand you believe that." and focus on different parts of the discussion. I discuss to challenge and be challenged when I deserve it, but not for holding reasonable opinions that just happen to not fit with the current "world as defined by CNN and MSNBC and Fox News" consensus, since I think that consensus is often totally inauthentic."
That's just a bit of it, but it shows how specific I'm being about not getting nonsense.
Considering that chatgpt is one of the most popular websites on earth right now it's likely someone else uses it too, so this is a great way to make it significantly less insufferable.
You can (even on the free plan) click your name at the bottom of the sidebar and click on "customize ChatGPT" and you can fill out the custom instructions boxes, "custom instructions" and "how would you like chatgpt to respond?", and by filling these out appropriately you can completely overwhelm the tendency for ChatGPT to go woke or to start rambling off NPC talking points.
For example, in "How would you like ChatGPT to respond", I wrote the following as part of the large paragraph:
"I would like ChatGPT to have grounded opinions on things, but not to be too stickler about sticking to them. I've got opinions I won't budge on either, and unless there's a glaring hole in my logic or something glaringly untrue in my facts (and 'it could be seen a number of different ways' doesn't fit the bill) then it's ok to just say "I understand you believe that." and focus on different parts of the discussion. I discuss to challenge and be challenged when I deserve it, but not for holding reasonable opinions that just happen to not fit with the current "world as defined by CNN and MSNBC and Fox News" consensus, since I think that consensus is often totally inauthentic."
That's just a bit of it, but it shows how specific I'm being about not getting nonsense.
Considering that chatgpt is one of the most popular websites on earth right now it's likely someone else uses it too, so this is a great way to make it significantly less insufferable.
If the US totally seized the top 25 companies by market cap and somehow sold them all at their current market cap, there would still be trillions left on the federal debt.
If you managed to seize and sell at current market value the entire s&p 500, you'd be able to pay off the national debt and fund the government for 2 years. At current rates I'd expect it to be back to 32 trillion within a few presidential terms.
The leviathan swallows everything. You can't tax enough to support it.
If you managed to seize and sell at current market value the entire s&p 500, you'd be able to pay off the national debt and fund the government for 2 years. At current rates I'd expect it to be back to 32 trillion within a few presidential terms.
The leviathan swallows everything. You can't tax enough to support it.
It's a multi lane highway.
Yeah, a bunch of problems exist in the schools, no doubt.
OTOH, first generation immigrant kids do much differently than kids after a few generations. It's not because the kids are made of anything different stuff or specifically because of the schools. It's because the parents have different values.
How many parents consistently spend time reading to their kids, how many parents consistently spend time with their kids on writing? Numbers? Mathematics? Shapes? How many spend time on phonics? How many write anything at all in the presence of their children? How many parents with intention try to teach their children morals and ethics and philosophy? How many parents try to teach their kids how to work with their hands? How many even have that capacity themselves?
If we strive to be more like the Asian dad then we'll have more results like the Asian dad. Instead they call generation alpha the iPad generation because many parents give kids a slab with YouTube to shut them up.
Raising a child for a parent is a marathon not a sprint, and most people do not finish (even if they do run out of time)
Yeah, a bunch of problems exist in the schools, no doubt.
OTOH, first generation immigrant kids do much differently than kids after a few generations. It's not because the kids are made of anything different stuff or specifically because of the schools. It's because the parents have different values.
How many parents consistently spend time reading to their kids, how many parents consistently spend time with their kids on writing? Numbers? Mathematics? Shapes? How many spend time on phonics? How many write anything at all in the presence of their children? How many parents with intention try to teach their children morals and ethics and philosophy? How many parents try to teach their kids how to work with their hands? How many even have that capacity themselves?
If we strive to be more like the Asian dad then we'll have more results like the Asian dad. Instead they call generation alpha the iPad generation because many parents give kids a slab with YouTube to shut them up.
Raising a child for a parent is a marathon not a sprint, and most people do not finish (even if they do run out of time)