Arkhaine_kupo

You remain skeptical of something proven through leaked emails?

https://www.searchenginejournal.com/google-execs-scheme-to-i...

The thesis of these competitors was that Google got worse because of bad product decisions or implementation failures.

But they did though. Google results got significantly worse after ads started lagging in revenue. So they hindered search and increased focus on the ad platform which shot up profits in 2019 I believe.

The web becoming more inhospitable is true. But Google has the tools, the data, and the engineers to wade through the bs and return good results. They just rather have bad results and good ads because that is where their bread is buttered.

A lot of competitors are working with a fraction of the budget, teams and data. So asking a small team to do proper AI detection, to return smaller indexed sites with high quality info over mass linked SEO abused hellscapes is very complicated, but asking Google to figure it out is proportional to their talent, expertise and resources.

It just not going to move their bottom line, so search is de prioritised compared to ads (some might even argue its made worse on purpose to make ads look even better)

Maybe it's your algorithm

Nope, its just the set up of Youtube.

The front page is by design around 60% videos you have already watched. Best case scenario.

It used to be 9 videos in 3 rows of 3. now its 2 videos, then 5 shorts.

In the side bar the default was "Related" which was almost always new videos, directly related to the video you just watched. Now its a tab called "All" which aggregates related tabs such as "Watched" which again is videos you already watched. Content from the same channel (not necessary related to the current video)

All of this hides possibly related videos and narrows down discoverability.

it also ignores the push of youtube to reduce visibility of things (the front page being mostly shorts by volume is pretty telling)

There are multiple ways to respond to that and I will try and summarise them.

Current believe is that its a "winner takes all market", so companies are acting rationally and using Brute Force compute to get there first. Training costs scale linearly, which means the moat is directly related to compute cost

There are theories that they are wasting 90% of training costs and there are more efficient ways to do it than throw compute at the problem. But if thats the case then chances are the market is not "winner takes all". Which then means the valuation of the ENTIRE market is overvalued.

Basically the only way for the assertion "at the moment" to be true is if the market is a bubble, else if the current theory of winner takes all market means a monopoly will make it so that cost isnt even the worst of the moats to enter.

better business model than whatever anthropic is doing.

going after business is a more secure long term recurring revenue source. Its boring but it works. It just doesnt justify trillions of dollars in investment

ads is the only acceptable way to pay for content by majority.

Lmao look at the revenue per user of any ad platform, now look at the stock price of AI companies.

If you think that they can only rely on ads you should short them with every cent you have. Because they are worth 1/100 of their current valuation.

And I dont even disagree with you, but ads in LLMs are a nail in the coffin to the "replace 16% of the entire US workforce" which is their current valuation.

Another ad delivery platform will make them as valuable as facebook, not as valuable as 1/6 of the world economy

The content is the most varied

If no one can find it, you basically have a modern digital version of the "if a tree falls and no one hears it does it make a sound".

Discoverability in youtube is currently absurdly shit. The algo just decides you like something and shows you the exact same videos you have already watched 30 times. Its so so bad, specially with how good the front page and side recommendations used to be.

Now its a fight of shorts, repeated videos, AI garbage, and search ignoring explicitly your request.

Add regulation/enforcement to the big companies and you often shut out the smaller ones following.

That is the case, any regulation increases the cost to enter a market.

But in this case, its irrelevant because the moat of cost to enter is already unfathomable and secondly, they are not adding regulation but fining them for committing a crime.

So yeah, adding that every food compnay needs 3 health inspectors that they pay for would benefit coca cola over you mom and pop bakery. But telling someone they cannot start a Space agency with money laundered from ransom and drug sales payments would not affect much the competition markets

The data consistently shows that non-voters have lower trust in institutions.

the data there in page 30 is kind of the smoking gun to what I was saying.

Non voters and trump voters have a much higher percentage of not using AI

things like that would affect significantly the people engaged enough to participate in a conversation of what the prompts would be like

Or is that your assumption based on something?

Trump's ex wife mentioned the only book he ever had in his bedside table at night was on hitler speeches. Multiple Trump aides have been caught reading the mEIN kampf. Stephen Miller is somehow the world's only nazi jew and writes trump's speeches.

To this cohort of people Elon spent a fortune on funding their campaign, even willing to commit election fraud (the 1 million giveaway case which is on going but seems open and close).

In front of that audience he did 2 nazi salutes chest to straight arm. He didnt apologise or explain it either.

What other possible explanation is there beyond "the dude saw a nazi adjacent politcal platform and spent hundreds of millions to make it succeed and then went mask off the second he knew there would be no repercussions"

More like a dictator versus a Poltiburo.

The dictator has a proven track record of stupid opinions in multiple topics, mostly programming, which directly can be measured and understood by people here.

Meanwhile the politburo is mostly nerds, who come and interact in places like hackernews.

So its basically having a moron making wild choices or a technocracy.

Considering the recent election results, they would look more like Grok.

Considering that the largest voter base was "didnt vote" and that the voters of the republican party measured lower in literacy, technical knowledge, higher education acquisitions and even studies on accurately describing reality. I am not entirely confident they would participate or move the shadow prompt in any meaningful direction.

If you think of it as lossy compression algorithm that makes sense.

"There is a book about a boy in a magical school, with friends, who fights a big bad and its called ..."

should have Harry Potter as the highest possible response. But that is not the answer based on a truth model, just a statistical average. You could have been looking for Earthsea series. Or it could have the heat turned up and decide to go for a hallucinated answer over the statistically most likely token.

If you want a verifiable answer your best options would be to have the heat turned to 0, but that means it cannot create new responses. Or if you have heat, to ask 4 times and sample the avg. But at that point what is the advantage over just googling it?

And one shooting your answer and hoping its the bell curve answer is going to have decent results but its also proveably going to fail in a non insignificant number of cases

Why ask a human being who might have the exact knowledge you are looking for when you can ask the "dumb machine of making things up and getting things wrong" instead.

Now being serious, LLMs are nondeterministic loosy compression algorithm which return "what a plausible answer to that question would be". They have no world model, no truth verification and formally will be excellent while having no verifiable content.

This is quite the contradiction in a democracy.

Is it?

I get that being charming and literally convincing voters it a prerequisite for the job. However the idea that even despite having those qualities there are parts of his character that should disqualify him as a candidate seem equally plausible.

Charles Manson was very charming, but he should still not hold office.

Similarly, Obama or Mamdani being charming is not what gained them interest in progressive circles.

Don't bigger companies also often benefit from scale in multiple ways so it gets harder and harder for newcomers to compete?

That is one of the ways a Moat can happen and a monopoly can occur. For example if you were the only person with a loom and everyone else had to make jumpers by hand, you could make them so cheap they would have to close down.

In some markets those ways you can benefit from scale exist, in others there are drawbacks. In many cases those advantages only exist due to either regulation or lac thereof.

For example ways companies might have an advantage is by manufacturing in cheaper countries, but that only works because those workers have less rights and the cost of transporting is not properly taxed. Carbon taxes on shipping would make manufacturing in China pretty comparatively priced to many european countries. But if you let them contaminate the ocean with crude oil boats, then their manufacturing prowess and cheaper labour cost will offset the shipping cost and destroy a newcomer.

These are very basic examples and they all require nuance but hope it helps to explain it a bit more.

Another example is restaurants, you used to have some advantages from being a chain, but you would still constantly see mom and pop joints compete and even win. But as rent prices keep increasing (the non elastic market of the ground under the lease), suddenly the advantages of scale start beating the disadvantages of worse food and service.

I have never been nice,

first comment was both cheeky and had a "i agree" at the end. Those are both niceties. Not sure why I would have to explain tone from mild critique to being a wee cu nt in back to back messages

I am pro-regulation, where regulation for me is busting monopolies, preventing tragedy of commons, setting necessary quality checks, forbidding forced labor. I am against regulation

What does any of this nonsense have anything to do with me replying to someone who had a basic question about the non existance of monopolies in unregulated markets?

I explained the basic mechanisms for monopoly creation which are all easy math formulas that happen in bacteria growth too because "if nothing stops me I eat everything" is equally valid in any env where there is growth

There's no nuance remaining in this world

coming from anti-intellectual "oh you know chesterton fence" responses is pretty ironic.

Btw if you are going to call people out for using big words maybe dont come out with the most 17 year old "people arent as smart as me as they emotionally attach themselves to sophistry while I am a nuanced rational ubermench". It reeks of intellectual insecurity.

i asked for empirical evidence against the mechanisms of monopoly creation because moats, regulation and inelastic markets are the most studied and reproducible mechanisms in anture, economics and any growth env. The formula just converges to infinity

In short - fuck America.

its like 3am there, everyone here is asian and european rn... you are fighting windmills

Went from nice to rude in no time.

4chan greentext style over substance is cute, but its outdated and wasnt that funny a decade ago

if you have nothing to add, then why reply?

I mean, has there any empirical evidence disproven any of those base assumptions?

In econ the easiest part is to create a model, the hardest part is seeing it crash against reality. But the basis of monopolies seems to be pretty thoroughly tested. The biggest issues you have now are Chesterton Fence's. Were its hard to know what laws and regulations are therefore safety, parity and economic performance and ones are only creating friction with no benefit due to years of laws being put on top of other laws

Aren't monopolies is what we end up by default if have no regulation at all?

No. Monopolies are only inevitable if the goods aren't elastic, if there is a large cost of entry into the market, or if its a market you can create a moat that is unsurmountable.

Many markets don't have that even with 0 regulation, but might have second order problems like firms creating unsafe products for example.

But in general regulations almost always even unindentedly raise the cost to enter the market. If you make a new regulation that food needs to be safe, then the company needs to pay a safety inspection that a small home-made recipe might not be able to afford (to give a simple example).

At the same time, we now have uber large corporations due to non elastic parts of supply chain (like land) or moats that are insurmountable (like access to US capital). In which case, the FCC should break up monopolies as the current market is not catering to end users and consumers but to owners, which is why the Stock market has been in a never ending bull run.

what do you want me to tell you?

That you will try and educate yourself in the nuances of a complicated topic like nutrition and wont advocate for anti intellectual and anti scientific shorthand doomerism that makes people less educated and capable of distinguishing healthy habits?

We've been eating veggies and fruits for hundred millions of years without any problem but 4 decades of processed food skyrocketed all of our lifestyle related health issues.

None of this is true. We have been dying of starvation, food borne illnesses and nutricional deficits for millenia, industrilisation and post war economies have replaced that with hyper caloric ultra processed food that hand in hand with more sedentary lifestyles have skyrocketed a limited amount of health issues like cardiovascular problems.

We dont die of iodine deficiencies because we added it to salt, we dont die of scurvy because citric acid is common and citrus fruits plentiful, varied diets and better agriculture means locusts, bad weather, insects and specific harvest destroying pathogens happen less often and dont kill all our crops.

Btw in our modern world places like italy, the basque country, japan still have incredibly healthy populations. They mostly eat veggies, fish, fatty oils and walk alot. Their portions are also smaller than in places like america. And its not like ultra processed food doesnt exist there, or that they dont use chemicals in their food production.

https://preview.redd.it/yodjulpnhclf1.jpeg?width=1240&format...

this is the chemical composition of a strawberry

my phd-less grandfather will have to now avoid his favourite dessert :(

Shorter ingredient lists can be a good rule of thumb, but things like E-XXXX can just be regulator names for regular things.

E-330 is citric acid which is lemon juice

E-621 is MSG which is just more meaty tasting salt from seaweed sources instead of rock.

The E classification is for regulation testing, not a label of how processed something is.

Another rule of thumb other than ingredient list is who made it. Your local baker will probably have a less processed method than a mega factory like Bimbo Hovis or any other macro manufacturer that can put 1000 loaves in every supermarket in the country every day

The state of physics for most human bodies is "avoid things that are too hot/cold, electricity and heavy things requiere more energy to move, things fall when thrown up"

With those kind of basic ideas you can mostly survive and figure your way around. No one needs to check spin on electrons when living their day to day. Or the mass of a neutron star versus a blackhole

Similarly, nutrition science can be extremely specific about gut microbiome compositions and its effect in regulating specific hormones and so on. But most humans just need the guidelines of dont over eat, have mostly fish/legumes and veggies and be active (strength training and regular walks) to have a healthy life.

no one needs to know the exact frequency and voltage of your plug to be taught to not stick your giners on the wall, and no one needs to know the exact victamin C and iron content of spinach to know its healthier than ultraprocessed chips

The material outcome is what should be the goal. Tests are a relatively brute way to try and determine how well the student understands the material, but conversations about grade inflation and "back in my day getting a grade was hard", and professors purposefully putting difficult questions (not in content but in presentation of the question) all betray the inherent goal being pursued.

Its all Goodhart's law problem, but we are missing the forest for the trees talking about grades and tests when what we want is people to be educated, and critical thinkers and competent in their area and due to a comprehensive way to evaluate that we end up talking about grade inflation or how Yale vs Berkeley gives letters at the end of a semester

Isnt that how american contracts work?

You put your Headquarters in seattle, your data center in alabama, you have your dev team in SF... every state gets a slice

Like gov contracts and how they are divided is basically the largest conversation in defense contracts, they give more of a shit who will make the nails for a tank than the security parameters of the crew members

Any platform with millions of users and dedicated communities will be hard to generalise, but there were countless examples of it happening.

Length of posts has plummeted, "meme" content and "twitter" like language was repudiated while now its basically the main mode of communication.

There used to be "famous" usernames, not everyone agreed with them but most people considered their input valuable, ending perhaps with the famous Unidan incident.

I would admit that having been in the site for 15 years the degradation has been continuos and small communities were much better than default subs from the get go. But the Eternal September post App release has been irreversible and made the site culture absolute trash

Despite this, we have still seen a steady trend toward extreme views on the platform.

There were 3 conditions that were working and were removed very very quickly

1) it was a web application only. Which enforces an interaction that is more contientous

2) it skewed older. Compared to other sites like IFunny or Instagram the age profile was closer to 30 than 12.

3) the upvote/downvote mechanic was used to upvote relevant content not something you agreed with. And downvote to drown overused jokes, lack of nuance posts etc.

But in 2020 reddit destroyed 3rd party apis and went full head on the app.

Age plummeted, app useage is mroe casual than laptops and length of posts went full brainrot and lastly there was no enforcement to teach people what upvotes meant. So it became thumbs up or down, and the jokes went from heavily downvoted to always the top comment.

150 million users in 6 months is the death of any conversation and reddit did it on purpose to try an IPO.

People have a strawman version of their out-groups in mind and quickly map people to that if an unknown person says something that indicates they might be part of the out-group.

I think something that is not calibrated in the post and also missing in this reply is that believes and actions do not need to be aligned.

Both groups say around 10% of members support political violence, however no democratic president is pardoning wholesale domestic terrorists. And the 90% of republicans who condemn political violence are not repudiating, removing themselves or condeming the fact that far right groups are the most dangerous demo according to the FBI, or that most political violence occurs in rep states, or the direct correlation of the NRA infiltration into rep campaigning and mass shootings...

Like if you say you dislike violence but defend the system that creates the violence and pardon the people who commit the violence and share the table and take the money from the violent people... your "beliefs" are not worth much.

The whole conversation about out-groups is less relevant when discussing left wing policy due to the fact that it is not orchestrated AROUND in and outgroups. Right wing ideology is de-facto a ingroup political theory where some people must be excluded. When you add morality being justified due to being in group you end up with some very concerning politics where actions are judged on beloning to the group and not the morality of the action or the consequences.

See the blue collar protect the children anti abortion crew voting for a new york millionaire owner of a beuty pagent who was best friend with the worlds best known human child trafficker...

The believe system collapses the second you put the right tee shirt on, and that is what makes polling those people irrelevant. They simply will support whatever is in front of them as long as they belong to the in group. War bad in ukraine, war good in Iran. Taxes bad in 2018, tariff taxes good now. Sillicon Valley tech people all leftwing indian soy boys in 2016 now all alpha podcast ai cool guys who fund our president.

nothing matters as long as you wear the tee shirt

The FBI shows up if you write about the pres.

But tbh its so much nicer when journalists self censor to not lose their job because of access to healthcare.

Or when billionaires buy entire media empires and fire journalists critical of the goverment.

Bezos owning WP, Murdoch owning everything else, Sinclair owning local stations... the free speech is so fucking goood

Its like fussion power, except there we half the funding every year instead of doubling it

What other reason is there for an otherwise unremarkable character to become the public face of the issue for years?

Chuck Schumer is the whip of the party, as mentioned she isnt even top 10 in performance, her party didnt legalise the activity, other members are aggresive in their pursuit of insider trading information (MTG was part of the most committees during her tenure, but she skipped almost all votes after that, she just wanted the scoop adn then bolted) ...

So why her?

The most common excuse is "well people demand more of dems because everyone knows republicans are crooks", which doesnt explain why more senior leaders, ex presidents etc are the ones hounded instead of her.

how ever surveys by lobbys like the ones owned by the Koch brothers show which politicians people find unlikeable. Unsurprsingly many are unremarkable women, just like Nancy, which makes them easy targets for public campaigns in favour or against.

If you name the most talked about politicans of the past 20 years, outside of the pres (Obama, Biden, Trump) you get mostly women (Sarah Palin, Kamala Harris, Nancy Pelosi, AOC, MTG, Kristi Noem, Laurent Bobert) that is not a coincidence and it explains why no one could pick Schumer, who is senior leadership, in a police line up but can tell you the many dogs Kristi killed