calinet6

Joined 14 years ago

Karma
6,786
Submissions
1,835
Member since
Feb 13
Product designer with a CS background, California born, living & working in Boston.
View on Hacker News

Recent submissions

Comment · 2 months ago
Ridiculous
Comment · 2 months ago
There is no knowing or not knowing or intelligence or not intelligence inside an LLM tool. There is only predicting the next token.
Comment · 2 months ago
Agree. Token predicting machines will continue to be token predicting machines by nature. Continued size and tuning will have the effect of making them more and more perfect at being average.
Comment · 2 months ago
Man, I am so tired of reading slop.
Comment · 1 year ago
It's an extremely accurate definition of what we genuinely believe. There is no ulterior motive. There is no hidden agenda. It's very simple, and we're all confused why it even needs to be a 'thing.'
Comment · 1 year ago
It does not mean that at all.
Comment · 3 years ago
This thread is full of idiots who think they're geniuses.
Comment · 6 years ago
No, keep in mind not all of us are brainwashed libs, even though we still care about the impact of social media on society.
Comment · 6 years ago
I doubt we think as differently as you believe.

I am just a user experience designer. There is a wide, wide rift between what users desire and what will actually solve their problems. I'm paid to reconcile that difference.

I do not intend to design society. But then, people are, as we speak. I don't know what's better--letting them design for what people want regardless of what it does to society, or designing for a society that's better regardless of what individuals desire.

We're primitive creatures. All of us, myself included. We're mostly run by our lizard brains, going after what spurts the happy chemicals into our brains.

I don't think society should be shaped to battle against human nature; but I certainly don't think uncontrolled human nature should shape society. As in all things, a balance.

That is what design is, always.

Comment · 6 years ago
I guess you did not appreciate any corrections I might have.

More seriously, I think you would be surprised at the variety of human experience that’s not covered by your ideals here.

Comment · 6 years ago
"precisely zero" was an exaggeration to be sure, but it's rather close to reality.

Look up a Fermi problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_problem

That's a good place to start with these kinds of questions.

I figure this is true simply because of the remarkably low population of Hacker News compared to society at large; there's simply not enough people here for changes to this specific site to make an impact on the larger social media ecosystem.

To be more realistic, I'll estimate that getting the social media platform Hacker News exactly perfect from a systemic standpoint might have an impact on around 0.001% of the societal social media problem. We've then got 99.999% more to impact.

And if you believe that people reading Hacker News are somehow more influential to society than the average social media user or something... well, we would not then have that belief in common.

Comment · 6 years ago
First, in no world am I arguing that I personally get to decide what is good or bad. Lord no.

Second, your argument devolves to everyone should be able to decide what to do for themselves or their company without discussion about what is good or bad for society or the environment at large.

So no, I can’t agree with that.

At some point we need to be able to discuss how to make society better. If that’s not allowed, then that’s not a society I want to live in.

Comment · 6 years ago
That last point is the kicker to me.

We need to start understanding that there is no such thing as a natural state of freedom; there is only freedom from and freedom to, within specific environmental constraints and power structures. We are always influenced--the question is just what influences we want to prevent, design, or control and which we want to leave undesigned or "free."

Comment · 6 years ago
The key difference here is that the speech is already highly managed and influenced to a degree never before seen in history. To think otherwise would be foolish.

Twitter isn't some natural state of the world that is pristine and unassailable; Facebook isn't the square in the park where people can speak their voice, and other choose to listen, participate, or walk along. Neither are anything like a book or newspaper.

If you're saying we shouldn't optimize or manage or turn the dials of these systems, then that's accepting that the current management and optimization and dials are somehow, inexplicably, acceptable or natural.

Someone has designed these systems and is influencing speech with their decisions. I don't have any power over them, but someone does, and the dials and designs of the system and the type of speech and communication they reinforce or encourage will change over time.

What gives them, the designers of the systems, any more right to manage their own system and the speech on it by their design choices? Are we to simply accept the corporations' design of their systems without critique or argument?

Not taking any action is to accept the current action, which still influences society. Not managing systems is to accept the current state of those systems, which still manages speech.

I do not see any difference whatsoever in those paths, so I will argue for trying to improve the systems.

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton