Yeah but horses to cars is insignificant compared to an AI that is going to swallow us all. We don't even have time to make new career choices because AI will catch up faster than we can think.
>So I would end up paying a guy $150 to tell me to pay another $1000 for a new washing machine...
I agree that there's a huge difference between $2 and $1150, but you're absolutely positive that only this Youtuber knew how to do it and that no repair man would've been able to?
Well, I'm reasonably certain there are dozens of YouTubers who figured it out. I wouldn't be surprised if I could figure it out myself, although it's unclear. But yes, repairmen, they would not be replacing a single relay. They would replace the whole board if it's available. Otherwise, the whole thing is scrapped.
Repairing a relay is something that's easy for someone to do by themselves. However, it is not worth it for repairmen. By the time they get the relay, which means a second trip for another $150, plus spend the time to unsolder it and re-solder it, so a bit more of their time, so now we're up to $400. Worse, they replaced the relay and sometimes it turns out the relay failed because something else is broke and another thing is just going to break the new relay right away and now they have to spend another $150 on a repair trip to figure out what was wrong that caused the relay to burn out, replace that part and replace the relay. We are very close to the cost of a new washing machine right now and that is assuming whatever is wrong is easy to repair and not the result of something else that is also broken. Thus, the right answer for a repairman is you make the simple, cheap, quick fixes you can or you just sell them a new one before you end up wasting more of their money than it
Modern factories are very efficient at making things, however, that only works when the assembly line is there. A repairman working alone doesn't have all the advantage of a factory. I was recently talking to one of our factory engineers at work and they said this part, whatever it was, took two 'man hours' to build in our factory. But a repairman just taking it apart to replace one cheap seal and putting it back together would be at 10 man hours. This is why more and more things are going to modules that can be replaced. If a repair person can come out and look and say, this module is broken, grab a new one, shove it in, and it works, they can be in and out quickly and it's cost-effective. If they have to tear down to the relay level and diagnose things if you're at why it really broke, that quickly becomes more labor and thus more cost than it's worth.
Your devices in the 1960s did work and they were worth repairing because they were a lot simpler. Those devices also didn't have nearly as much automation in the assembly line and so there were many more man hours to build in the first place. They were also, although this is less true depending on what we're talking about, but very often had unreelable parts that because they were broke often, they specifically designed those for your parable. You fixed a 1960s TV by replacing all the tubes, something that was not very hard to do because they put more expensive sockets under each tube to make it easy
1.) I don't want to give companies more information about me.
2.) I don't trust that that information will be used to primarily benefit me, I trust that it will be used primarily to keep me on the platform somehow. Ick.
3.) As others have suggested in other comment chains, the way the algorithms have responded to "feedback" I've given it in the past has been so godawful and off-base that I have zero faith it will be of any benefit to contribute my sentiments.
This is what most ads that seem to be "targeted ads" are for me. I buy a thing, and then two weeks later all of the targeted ads are for the thing I bought weeks ago and no longer need.
I don't want "recommender systems", I just want easily-browsable catalogues that start out being sorted by their actual genre (looking at you, Netflix homepage with a bunch of bullshit 'categories'). I want to be able to look through things at my own pace and in my own way. I want to browse through movies/shows the same way I browse for records in a record store.
I'm happy to take recommendations from friends and family members who know what my nuanced tastes are, I don't want recommendations from some unknown algorithm built by someone for the purpose of keeping me on the platform.
The article is about improving recommender systems, not replacing them. I generally agree that the best way to discover things is through other information channels like friends and family, reviews, curated critics' lists, etc. Prime Video has a decent browse by genre feature, but I don't find browsing all that successful. For example, if I want a comedy, I'll look at a list by BFI or They Shoot Pictures and then pick one that looks good from those.
>The article is about improving recommender systems, not replacing them.
But what's a "recommender system"? Are my friends and family who understand my tastes at a deeper level than an algorithm not a "recommender system"? Is your approach to finding comedies via BFI/They Shoot Pictures not a form of a "recommender system" for you?
If recommender systems truly depend on a deeper level of nuance that they likely won't ever be able to get without people giving up even more privacy than they already do, shouldn't we look at alternative forms of recommendations as a form of improvement, rather than sticking to altering what's already there?
I'd argue that using algorithmic recommendations limits exploration and agency and doesn't allow us to develop our taste beyond our taste's current horizons. Without them, serendipity can be genuinely serendipitous if not moreso, our effort can increase attachment/pleasure when it pays off, and we have more opportunities to build knowledge along the way.
I might be digressing just a bit here, but I fundamentally believe that the answer to broken algorithmic feeds, or recommendation systems, or whathaveyou, isn't going to be found in more algorithms.
>But what's a "recommender system"? Are my friends and family who understand my tastes at a deeper level than an algorithm not a "recommender system"?
Not really. "Recommender system" has a pretty narrow technical definition. It's an automated system that takes input from the user (clicks, watch time, ratings, etc.) and produces a list of recommendations.
Maybe what you don't like is the average user's preferences. People seem to like being told what to watch. If there's demand for a streaming service that dispenses with recommendations, then someone should be able to make a lot of money building it.
Yeah, sure, that very narrow technical definition does exist, but it doesn't have exclusive ownership of the concept, and broader social definitions also exist. Why should we limit ourselves to thinking about it so narrowly? Must an algorithmic problem require an algorithmic solution?
>Meta has warped society to think that life is meaningless without affirmation.
No, Meta just amplified it to the nth degree. Humanity has always put an outsized emphases on such affirmation, whether it's reputation, status, belonging, approval, prestige, attractiveness, respectability, yadda yadda yadda. Consumer culture and mass media were already firmly entrenched and doing a damn good job of turning those into visible measures of personal worth in the form of wealth, possessions, beauty standards, popularity, professional success, celebrity... I could go on and on.
Meta just put a big ol' bright spotlight on the worst aspects that we were already amplifying, and perhaps sped-run that amplification.
I'd put it differently. The affirmation we were accustomed to generally had some substance. If someone called, sent you a postcard, or met with you, it probably meant they cared at least to some extent.
Social media strips all that away to the point where affirmation costs no effort to give but also means nothing. Here's a test I like to recommend: don't post anything on HN, X, or Facebook for a month. See how many people notice or reach out and ask if you're OK. The most likely answer is zero. Hundreds or thousands of "friends", zero meaningful return.
This also makes us feel that we constantly need to work for these affirmations. If you don't post, no one likes you. This is not a Facebook problem, but Facebook built its business around it, so they deserve to be singled out.
>The affirmation we were accustomed to generally had some substance. If someone called, sent you a postcard, or met with you, it probably meant they cared at least to some extent.
For the Average Joe, absolutely! Completely agreed.
>Social media strips all that away to the point where affirmation costs no effort to give but also means nothing. Here's a test I like to recommend: don't post anything on HN, X, or Facebook for a month. See how many people notice or reach out and ask if you're OK. The most likely answer is zero. Hundreds or thousands of "friends", zero meaningful return.
This is what it had been like for celebrities, people of fame, of massive wealth, of great success/achievements, and so forth for a very long time. Cultures put those on a pedestal and encouraged people to want to reach for those same things, to want to be more than the Average Joe. We wanted it, and Meta gave everyone the ability to have it.
I don't think it's the same. People usually don't see their "relationship" with celebrities as peer-to-peer. They either look up or look down on them (i.e., idolize or hate). So the attention you get from fans as a celebrity is actually a lot more meaningful. People go to great lengths to tell you about the impact you had on their life and they don't forget you easily. The scale makes it awkward, but the emotions are real.
On social media, we usually don't care about the other person at all. Likes and comments are 100% transactional. I have thousands of "followers" on X. If I die tomorrow, they won't even notice. The space on their timeline will be filled by other content to retweet or like.
I always thought fandom was '3rd party.' Like, you have an actor in a high-exposure job, but the more the middleware companies boost the allure of any arbitrary celebrity, the more money they'll make. The actor may address 'the people at large' during press events, but by-and-large, don't really interface with fans all that much.
> We wanted it, and Meta gave everyone the ability to have it.
Slight modification: We wanted to feel good about things, and Meta, knowing exactly what they were doing, took advantage of that to enrich themselves while gaslighting everyone that their manipulation and exploitation was totally ok and normal.
Its easy for people without a conscience like Zuckerberg to do that and laugh about it.
> No, Meta just amplified it to the nth degree.
> [...]
> Meta just put a big ol' bright spotlight on the worst aspects that *we* were already amplifying, and *perhaps* sped-run that amplification.
No, pick one. If it's the former, it's essentially the same as saying they warped society.
I agree that these traits are human and were there before social media, but amplifying, gamifying and exploiting addiction is reprehensible.
> Meta has warped society to think that life is meaningless without affirmation
> No, Meta just amplified it to the nth degree. Humanity has always put
Those statements are the same. Our species was not designed to deal with the pressures of a A/B tested content fairy, designed by the most well paid minds our most advanced societies have trained, running on infrastructure that is more expensive than the GDP of many nations.
There are bounds within which a system functions optimally. When pushed far beyond those bounds, indefinitely, it is absolutely accurate to say the system becomes warped.
>This is the “If I wouldn’t have done it, somebody else would have”.
This is a disingenuous read of my comment.
>Villains have agency, and deserve to get the blame for their malevolent actions.
On this we absolutely agree, especially in regards to Meta. Nothing in life is that black and white, and there's nuance - to ignore our culture's outsized desire for things like that as a part of what pre-disposes us to being addicted to Meta/et al's bullshit is a fallacy.
It is that amplification that is the problem. Everyone has a voice. But if one actor chooses which voices to amplify it is responsible for the results.
This episode will come to an end, only to be replaced by a more subtle - surely AI driven - form of amplification/attenuation.
Tobacco existed for eons, and then American tobacco companies engineered it to make it a hundred times as addictive with full knowledge of what they were doing. They intentionally created dependencies. I have no sympathy for them. This is too light of a settlement.
>At the same time he has monumental successes that nobody, ever, has achieved.
"Nobody ever" doesn't really feel accurate here.
>Worlds safest car (multiple times)...
According to which body? Tesla's interpretation of NHTSA data? Some other organization? Did other cars prior to Tesla's inception obtain this title "multiple times"?
>... worlds highest selling car (model y)...
In 2023, the Y peaked at ~1.22 million. In 1923, the Model T sold ~2.09 million.
>... car of the year...
Numerous bodies label things "car of the year", and many cars were named that before and after Teslas were produced.
Please provide a list of all the companies that have reused a first stage booster many times.
And all the companies that have launched more to orbit in a year than everyone else combined.
> According to which body? Tesla's interpretation of NHTSA data? Some other organization? Did other cars prior to Tesla's inception obtain this title "multiple times"?
August 2013 (Model S): Tesla announced that the Model S achieved a 5.4-star rating from the NHTSA, noting it was the highest score ever recorded at the time.
February 2017 (Model X): The NHTSA gave the Model X a 5-star rating in every category, making it the first SUV with the lowest probability of injury.
August 2018 (Model 3): Tesla published data showing the Model 3 had the lowest probability of injury of any car tested by the NHTSA.
September 2022 (Model Y): The Model Y earned record-breaking safety scores during European testing, achieving the highest overall safety score recorded by Euro NCAP at that time.
December 2024 / 2025 (Model Y & Model 3): The IIHS awarded the Model Y a Top Safety Pick+ designation, while Euro NCAP named both the Model 3 and Model Y as "Best-in-Class" safety winners.
January 2026 (Global NCAP Wins): Euro NCAP and ANCAP crowned the Model 3 as the safest Large Family Car and the Model Y as the safest Small SUV under updated protocols.
> * In 2023, the Y peaked at ~1.22 million. In 1923, the Model T sold ~2.09 million.*
Safe to say the model T had a lot less competition in 1923 than the Y does now. Clearly it’s a bigger achievement now.
> Numerous bodies label things "car of the year", and many cars were named that before and after Teslas were produced.
Tesla were the first electric car to win coty and be highly praised as having a chance to make EVs mainstream. I don’t know how old you are and if you remember, the Model S was nothing like we had seen before (I’m an automotive journalist, FWIW)
reply