Posts
Comments
I just don't think we've seen anything that favors the hypothesis "algorithm 'intentionally' radicalizes people in order to get more clicks from them in the long run" over the hypothesis "algorithm shows people what they will click on the most (which is often extreme political content, and this causes them to become more radical, in a self-reinforcing cycle.)"
I think that experiment wouldn't prove anything about the algorithm's "intentions," which seem to be the interesting part of the claim. One experiment that maybe would (I have no idea if this is practical) is giving the algorithm the chance to recommend two pieces of content: a) high likelihood of being clicked on, b) lower likelihood of being clicked on, but makes the people who do click on it more polarized. Not sure if a natural example of such a piece of content exists.
Good question. I'm not sure why you'd privilege Russell's explanation over the explanation "people click on extreme political content, so the click-maximizing algorithm feeds them extreme political context."
Agreed. The slight initial edge that drives the eventual enormous success in the winner-takes-most market can also be provided by something other than talent — that is, by something other than people trying to do things and succeeding at what they tried to do. For example, the success of Fifty Shades of Grey seems best explained by luck.
The "EA as relief" framing resonated with me (though my background is different) and I appreciate your naming it!
"There is a genius for impoverishment always at work in the world. And it has its way, as if its proceedings were not only necessary but even sensible. Its rationale, its battle cry, is Competition."
Strong upvote for Month of May.
To the extent which reducing demand for chicken prevents or delays the slaughtering of existing chickens, I don't see why there is an asymmetry. I place positive value on chickens living their chicken lives (when those lives are net-positive, whatever that means). Go beyond that and you get into population ethics.
But more importantly, I think this post uses the term "good action" strictly to mean "action which has positive expected value," while the common usage of "good" is broader and can include actions which are merely less negative than an alternative.
I don't think the focus here should be only on suffering. Sometimes, I seek out art/media that depicts human flourishing, out of a desire to increase my altruistic motivation by reminding myself just what it is that we're working to protect + create.
Obviously a ton of art/media contains "people being happy," but when I'm looking for this, I look specifically for depictions of people who are very different from each other and from me, that show these people as being unique and weird and not at all how you thought they would be. Good examples are the tv show High Maintenance and the documentary In Jackson Heights. It's a certain aesthetic that increases my altruistic motivation because it reminds me, by showing me more of it than I normally see, of what a vast expanse human experience really is.
(For animals, it's more socially acceptable to just watch them intently for long periods of time.)
From reading the summary in this post, it doesn't look like the YouTube video discussed bears on the question of whether the algorithm is radicalizing people 'intentionally,' which I take to be the interesting part of Russell's claim.