Glad to hear it!

Totally agreed. I didn’t mean to say that it’s a failure if it doesn’t properly encapsulate all complexity, but that the inability to do so has implications for design. In this specific case (as in many cases), the error they’re making is that they don’t realize the root of the problem that they’re trying to solve lies in that tension.

The platform and environment are something you can shape even without an established or physical community.

Again, couldn’t agree more! The platform is actually extremely powerful and can easily change behavior in undesirable ways for users, which is actually the core thesis of that longer write up that I linked. That’s a big part of where ghosting comes from in the first place. My concern is that thinking you can just bolt a new thing onto the existing model is to repeat the original error.

This app fundamentally misunderstands the problem. Your friend sets you up on a date. Are you going to treat that person horribly. Of course not. Why? First and foremost, because you’re not a dick. Your date is a human being who, like you, is worthy and deserving of basic respect and decency. Second, because your mutual friendship holds you accountable. Relationships in communities have an overlapping structure that mutually impact each other. Accountability is an emergent property of that structure, not something that can be implemented by an app. When you meet people via an app, you strip both the humanity and the community, and with it goes the individual and community accountability.

I’ve written about this tension before: As we use computers more and more to mediate human relationships, we’ll increasingly find that being human and doing human things is actually too complicated to be legible to computers, which need everything spelled out in mathematically precise detail. Human relationships, like dating, are particularly complicated, so to make them legible to computers, you necessarily lose some of the humanity.

Companies that try to whack-a-mole patch the problems with that will find that their patches are going to suffer from the same problem: Their accountability structure is a flat shallow version of genuine human accountability, and will itself result in pathological behavior. The problem is recursive.

This is a frustrating piece. Anyone with even a passing knowledge of history knows that you can’t just report on what fascist movements say then fact check it (which is what WaPo is doing here). JD Vance doesn’t give a single shit about workers, and the facts don’t matter. It’s about aesthetics. The American fascist movement, like all such movements, is interested in appropriating the very real grievances of workers into a spectacle that serves power rather than challenges it. Walter Benjamin calls this the aestheticization of politics.

Fascism attempts to organize the newly proletarianized masses without affecting the property structure which the masses strive to eliminate. Fascism sees its salvation in giving these masses not their right, but instead a chance to express themselves. The masses have a right to change property relations; Fascism seeks to give them an expression while preserving property. The logical result of Fascism is the introduction of aesthetics into political life.

Investment giant Goldman Sachs published a research paper

Goldman Sachs researchers also say that

It’s not a research paper; it’s a report. They’re not researchers; they’re analysts at a bank. This may seem like a nit-pick, but journalists need to (re-)learn to carefully distinguish between the thing that scientists do and corporate R&D, even though we sometimes use the word “research” for both. The AI hype in particular has been absolutely terrible for this. Companies have learned that putting out AI “research” that’s just them poking at their own product but dressed up in a science-lookin’ paper leads to an avalanche of free press from lazy credulous morons gorging themselves on the hype. I’ve written about this problem a lot. For example, in this post, which is about how Google wrote a so-called paper about how their LLM does compared to doctors, only for the press to uncritically repeat (and embellish on) the results all over the internet. Had anyone in the press actually fucking bothered to read the paper critically, they would’ve noticed that it’s actually junk science.

I do really like the bait and switch intro strategy. I actually do that all the time in my own writing. I think that you could do that even harder using Hickel’s work as a source. Something like “Global poverty is down. Famines are going away. Things are going amazing. Except they aren’t,” then on to your stance about antinatalism. That might even open up an interesting epistemological argument to pivot: We ought to focus on what we know, not on these fragile measurements and stories, and what we do know is that people are born and will feel pain and pleasure.

As for the evolutionary disposition points, yeah those absolutely need more evidence before being used as strongly as I did, but my word limit for this was 1000-1250 and it’s sitting at like 1800 as is lol

Haha oh boy do I feel this one. I try so hard to keep my own essays under 2000 words, which is where I notice that people tend to read them a whole lot less. It’s really hard! I have no advice, since I’m terrible at this.

I do have a question, though. The problem I originally had writing this, was that it felt like a mixed-bag of poorly explained ideas from actual philosophers, with nothing original or convincing to say. I still feel like that’s largely the case, what do you think?

I actually think that’s totally fine, especially for an undergrad, but also in general. I also think about this in my own writing. I love a big new idea and feel pressure to come up with more, but sometimes that’s not what a topic needs. Sometimes things bear repeating with a new perspective, or a tweak, or a mix of other ideas. Sometimes, you just need to bring old ideas to a new audience, or repackage two relevant ideas from two places together, etc. All these things are worthy and necessary endeavors in human knowledge (re)production.

Some minor feedback on your rhetorical strategy: I think that you should reconsider your introduction. Accepting that kind of Stever Pinkeresque mainstream optimism doesn’t set up your argument very well, which is more thoughtful and much more willing to engage with subversive and controversial ideas than I thought it’d be from the intro. I especially didn’t like the law of diminishing returns bit: It’s not obvious at all why one should be able to apply a concept from classical economics about productivity to the human emotional experience. Those are pretty different things, and if you want to make that case by analogy, you’re going to have to set it up.

If it were me, I’d reframe the intro to be about how unquestioning optimism and a belief in a poorly defined “progress” is our society’s common narrative. Instead of appealing to diminishing returns to transition to your point about antinatalism, you could instead cite modern scholars like Jason Hickel who are (I think) very convincingly rebutting that narrative. That tees you up a little better to take that big step.

That’s really the main thing that jumped out to me. The only other thing that I’d say from my first pass is that you talk a lot about depression and the human tendency towards it. If I were reading this very closely, I would examine your sourcing on those points, and I would be extremely skeptical if your sources don’t include anthropologists, many of whom I suspect (though I don’t know) would take issue with that. It is true that it seems that we’re becoming more depressed, but going from there to arguing that it’s innate to humanity is, in my opinion, a big leap, even if you do cite some evolutionary reasons as to why it might be. It could that this line of thinking reifies hegemonic social conditions more than it says anything profound about humans.

Hope that helps!

Haha I was actually paraphrasing myself from last year, but I’ve seen that because lots of readers sent me that article when it came out a few months later, for obvious reasons!

I completely and totally agree with the article that the attention economy in its current manifestation is in crisis, but I’m much less sanguine about the outcomes. The problem with the theory presented here, to me, is that it’s missing a theory of power. The attention economy isn’t an accident, but the result of the inherently political nature of society. Humans, being social animals, gain power by convincing other people of things. From David Graeber (who I’m always quoting lol):

Politics, after all, is the art of persuasion; the political is that dimension of social life in which things really do become true if enough people believe them. The problem is that in order to play the game effectively, one can never acknowledge this: it may be true that, if I could convince everyone in the world that I was the King of France, I would in fact become the King of France; but it would never work if I were to admit that this was the only basis of my claim.

In other words, just because algorithmic social media becomes uninteresting doesn’t mean the death of the attention economy as such, because the attention economy is something innate to humanity, in some form. Today its algorithmic feeds, but 500 years ago it was royal ownership of printing presses.

I think we already see the beginnings of the next round. As an example, the YouTuber Veritsasium has been doing educational videos about science for over a decade, and he’s by and large good and reliable. Recently, he did a video about self-driving cars, sponsored by Waymo, which was full of (what I’ll charitably call) problematic claims that were clearly written by Waymo, as fellow YouTuber Tom Nicholas pointed out. Veritasium is a human that makes good videos. People follow him directly, bypassing algorithmic shenanigans, but Waymo was able to leverage their resources to get into that trusted, no-algorithm space. We live in a society that commodifies everything, and as human-made content becomes rarer, more people like Veritsaium will be presented with more and increasingly lucrative opportunities to sell bits and pieces of their authenticity for manufactured content (be it by AI or a marketing team), while new people that could be like Veritsaium will be drowned out by the heaps of bullshit clogging up the web.

This has an analogy in our physical world. As more and more of our physical world looks the same, as a result of the homogenizing forces of capital (office parks, suburbia, generic blocky bulidings, etc.), the fewer and fewer remaining parts that are special, like say Venice, become too valuable for their own survival. They become “touristy,” which is itself a sort of ironically homogenized commodified authenticity.

edit: oops I got Tom’s name wrong lol fixed

Am alternative approach that may interest you: https://theluddite.org/#!post/reddit-extension

I have worked at two different start ups where the boss explicitly didn’t want to hire anyone with kids and had to be informed that there are laws about that, so yes, definitely anti-parent. One of them also kept saying that they only wanted employees like our autistic coworker when we asked him why he had spent weeks rejecting every interviewee that we had liked. Don’t even get me started on people that the CEO wouldn’t have a beer with, and how often they just so happen to be women or foreigners! Just gross shit all around.

It’s very clear when you work closely with founders that they see their businesses as a moral good in the world, and as a result, they have a lot of entitlement about their relationship with labor. They view laws about it as inconveniences on their moral imperative to grow the startup.

This has been ramping up for years. The first time that I was asked to do “homework” for an interview was probably in 2014 or so. Since then, it’s gone from “make a quick prototype” to assignments that clearly take several full work days. The last time I job hunted, I’d politely accept the assignment and ask them if $120/hr is an acceptable rate, and if so, I can send over the contract and we can get started ASAP! If not, I refer them to my thousands upon thousands of lines of open source code.

My experience with these interactions is not that they’re looking for the most qualified applicants, but that they’re filtering for compliant workers who will unquestioningly accept the conditions offered in exchange for the generally lucrative salaries. It’s the kind of employees that they need to keep their internal corporate identity of being the good guys as tech goes from being universally beloved to generally reviled by society in general.

Whenever one of these stories come up, there’s always a lot of discussion about whether these suits are reasonable or fair or whether it’s really legally the companies’ fault and so on. If that’s your inclination, I propose that you consider it from the other side: Big companies use every tool in their arsenal to get what they want, regardless of whether it’s right or fair or good. If we want to take them on, we have to do the same. We call it a justice system, but in reality it’s just a fight over who gets to wield the state’s monopoly of violence to coerce other people into doing what they want, and any notions of justice or fairness are window dressing. That’s how power actually works. It doesn’t care about good faith vs bad faith arguments, and we can’t limit ourselves to only using our institutions within their veneer of rule of law when taking on powerful, exclusively self-interested, and completely antisocial institutions with no such scruples.

I don’t really agree with this. It is the answer that I think classical economics would give but I just don’t think it’s useful. For one, it ignores politics. Large corporations also have bought our government, and a few large wealth management funds like vanguard own a de facto controlling share in many public companies, oftentimes including virtually an entire industry, such that competition between them isn’t really incentived as much as financial shenanigans and other Jack Welch style shit.

Some scholars (i think I read this in Adrienne bullers value of a whale, which is basically basis for this entire comment) even argue that we’ve reached a point where it might be more useful to think of our economy as a planned economy, but planned by finance instead of a state central authority.

All that is to say: why would we expect competition to grow, as you suggest, when the current companies already won, and therefore have the power to crush competition? They’ve already dismantled so many of the antimonopoly and other regulations standing in their way. The classical economics argument treats these new better companies as just sorta rising out of the aether but in reality there’s a whole political context that is probably worth considering.

When it snows and the roads are icy, what’s supposed to happen? What’s the plan for getting around, for getting to work, for getting to school? […] Are we suggesting that colder climates just shouldn’t be populated?

This line of questioning is really important, and it’s why I think there’s no addressing our devastation of the environment without digging deep into the assumptions of our society.

Society, as we understand it today, requires all of us going to work and school every day, no matter the weather, otherwise it doesn’t work. We can’t live like that. It just doesn’t work. We exist in the world, and our attempts to pretend like we are somehow apart or above it, that our daily lives shouldn’t be impacted by it, are destructive. We just can’t be in such a hurry all the time.

So yes, when the weather is bad, we need to slow down, focusing our efforts on our highest priority infrastructure, like ambulances, with everyone else taking a beat, or even pitching in. To do that, we need to rethink our society, because as things stand now, I agree with you, that’s not really possible.

This is why I think degrowth and socialism are the only human way through the climate crisis. Capitalism is a death cult of infinite growth that forces each of us to contribute to our own destruction every day because we have to get to work to live every single day.

I love her. You know all of those outlets that try to respond how all the news is bad by doing good news, but it’s always just the orphan crushing machine all over again?

Solnit is like an actually rigorous and deeply insightful version of what that thinks it is doing. I think she herself would push back on anyone who says she tries to figure out “human nature,” but insomuch as that’s a meaningful thing to do, that’s what she does. The book’s central aim is to investigate what human beings are actually like when existing social expectations and power structures are removed, and it’s both well-researched and surprisingly optimistic.

I’d say less than a week. Capitalism is something that we have to wake up and make happen every single day. How many days worth of food does the average person have? Definitely not 45 days. People would have to start self-organizing within 2-3 days, and in doing so, they would actively make something that isn’t capitalism, which directly challenges those in power.

This is why every time there are emergencies or protests, the media is obsessed with “looting.” If there’s no food because of a hurricane or whatever, it is every single person’s duty to redistribute what there is equitably. The news and capitalists (but I repeat myself) call that “looting,” even when it’s a well-organized group of neighbors going into a closed store to distribute spoiling food to hungry people.

Rebecca Solnit writes about this in detail in A Paradise Built in Hell. It’s really good. She’s an awesome writer.

4 years seems reasonable to me. It takes most organizations six months to do literally anything outside the status quo. A general strike is an attempt to organize a coalition of federations of organizations.

Why the fuck would you give four years of warning for managers to document “a slow accumulation of poor performance” and other bullshit to shit can pro-union employees.

This is the reality of striking. The threat and build up to the strike are just as important as the actual strike, because it’s about more than just not going to work; it involves complex and wide-ranging logistical question, from how to support the strikers (otherwise corps can just wait you out) to how to decide on a single list of demands.

The very real threats you describe are what make outspoken union advocates awesome and brave people that we should all look up to, and it’s why we all have a responsibility to express solidarity and never cross a picket line. Together we bargain; alone we beg!

Sorta… the second does some pretty thin analysis, and the refers right back to the same report, of which i am skeptical considering they were just caught bending the truth in their favor.

We need a robust and publicly accountable third party investigation. I fear we don’t have the political and institutional infrastructure to do that, and it’s going to be like how even just 50 years ago the FDA regularly was letting dangerous shit fly that they absolutely should’ve caught and that companies were straight up lying about.

Both of those links rely on the same self-reported data by Cruise… We’ll see, I suppose! Happy to be proven wrong. I live on a frozen hilly dirt road, so realistically, for me, it’s not going to happen.