Thanks for pointing out the mistake.
On "Intellectual Dishonesty Score (IDS)" Of course you know what that is, you can often recognize it when you see it, it's just "Programmer You" has problems with imagining how the hell a computer can make such judgement. I intentionally brought this example to highlight AI innovations that even I thought previously was impossible. Anyhow, if it's easier to you, then you can just think of a robot recognizing logical fallacies. A "Logical Fallacy Score" is more algorithmizable than IDS.
Blocking and muting are similar in the sense that they're powers, users possess, however these actions target specific users and not the content itself.
You brought up a very good question of why we don't have user-controlled algorithms for feeds?
You theorized it might be the
(1) sophistication of engineering that was the bottleneck and I did alluded to that as well. If that's the case, I think #wokegpt et al. does bring the long awaited breakthrough. But on a second try, let me add two more theories here:
(2) It could also be that the platform has a great incentive to control the game to optimize the user feed for "engagement."
(3) It could also be that it has never been tried, since in context, social media is still a new thing and is still in its infancy, so such trivial ideas might have never been attempted before.
nopara73 /
npub1qq…80c3j
2023-02-22 11:45:50
in reply to nevent1q…9v3m
Author Public Key
npub1qqvf96d53dps6l3hcfc9rlmm7s2vh3f20ay0g5wc2aqfeeurnh0q580c3jPublished at
2023-02-22 11:45:50Event JSON
{
"id": "c37f1e58134cd763111183ebc4b241330e977928cd80e4c5b6c65670363977c5",
"pubkey": "001892e9b48b430d7e37c27051ff7bf414cbc52a7f48f451d857409ce7839dde",
"created_at": 1677066350,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"dcca7756020cecd4e2918036876f2fed86bf38546098c73b67abc0c7bd4f172b",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"79d1763bb36ac896c227e01b71e2c8d0c6d8d3839c52e2867952071e8e237c01",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"001892e9b48b430d7e37c27051ff7bf414cbc52a7f48f451d857409ce7839dde"
],
[
"p",
"aef0d6b212827f3ba1de6189613e6d4824f181f567b1205273c16895fdaf0b23"
],
[
"p",
"675b84fe75e216ab947c7438ee519ca7775376ddf05dadfba6278bd012e1d728"
],
[
"t",
"wokegpt"
]
],
"content": "Thanks for pointing out the mistake.\nOn \"Intellectual Dishonesty Score (IDS)\" Of course you know what that is, you can often recognize it when you see it, it's just \"Programmer You\" has problems with imagining how the hell a computer can make such judgement. I intentionally brought this example to highlight AI innovations that even I thought previously was impossible. Anyhow, if it's easier to you, then you can just think of a robot recognizing logical fallacies. A \"Logical Fallacy Score\" is more algorithmizable than IDS.\n\nBlocking and muting are similar in the sense that they're powers, users possess, however these actions target specific users and not the content itself.\n\nYou brought up a very good question of why we don't have user-controlled algorithms for feeds? \n\nYou theorized it might be the\n\n(1) sophistication of engineering that was the bottleneck and I did alluded to that as well. If that's the case, I think #wokegpt et al. does bring the long awaited breakthrough. But on a second try, let me add two more theories here:\n\n(2) It could also be that the platform has a great incentive to control the game to optimize the user feed for \"engagement.\"\n\n(3) It could also be that it has never been tried, since in context, social media is still a new thing and is still in its infancy, so such trivial ideas might have never been attempted before.",
"sig": "c849c1b059b0af7ecf285fd64440e272ac71d895774d2ab58c91c8c3ed726ce9f5c96bf1430e3dff9e83e2ac8092efef122f882a74fb94d3cac56a73cc9133ec"
}