The comparisons to anti-vax and flat earth are absurd.
And what exactly is the benefit to you to having a data centre specifically in the area you live? Seems to me that far from “irrational hordes”, the protestors are standing up for their interests above the interests of the AI companies.
The post is titled “How accurate have Ed Zitron's AI skeptic predictions been?” not “How accurate will Ed Zitron’s AI skeptic predictions be in the future?” or “Is the entire AI industry build out justified?”
If Patrick Boyle, Aswath Damodaran, and Daron Acemoglu have more accurate reporting and predictions about the upcoming decline of the AI industry, maybe those are voices who should be elevated over Zitron.
> The prediction was early, overestimated how long of a tail RIM would experience, but how wrong was it? Was the prediction of some utility?
Wrong enough that the utility is seriously diminished. Predicting a specific quantity dropping to a specific level at a specific date is a lot more valuable than saying “those guys are cooked”.
And even if some minuscule utility existed: why should predictors be so coddled by their observers? We should be demanding more rigour from predictors rather than looking for new and creative ways to forgive them for their folly.
> why should predictors be so coddled by their observers?
I suppose that in the RIM example the predictor correctly identified causes and concerns. The timelines are off. But highlighting the causes are interesting to me, as a datapoint.
If someone says "hey there's a problem here", you can somewhat independently look at the problem and validate its seriousness on your end.
Some people in this thread are like "well the value is in the prediction", but from my perspective I'm thinking "the value is in the causal analysis". Because if you merely think the timelines are wrong you can easily just change numbers around.
Obviously Zitron is not "always right", and isn't getting all causal analysis right IMO. I do think he's bringing up things though.
If the causal analysis is the real value, then it could be presented without a prediction, or at least without a specific prediction.
In 2024, if Ed Zitron presented all his analysis of AI companies without the specific “model capabilities have peaked this year” style statements that Dan Luu scrutinized, that would be more honest and provide the value you are looking for.
Similarly for the RIM example nobody would have to claim that RIM would fail in a particular year, or that “RIM is cooked”, they could present their data about the present without any projection.
> Predicting a specific quantity dropping to a specific level at a specific date is a lot more valuable than saying “those guys are cooked”.
It's also way harder, and the added value isn't that great, if you're not interested in playing the stock market.
As an example, explaining why the 2008 crisis was structurally bound to happen is probably more valuable to a policymaker than knowing whether it would start in august or september.
The added value other than the stock market would be in making major life decisions.
In the case of the 2008 crisis, specific knowledge of the timing could matter for buying or selling a house.
In the case of technological predictions, specific knowledge of the timing could affect whether you want to take a university program in a given field or join a certain company.
If a predictor can’t help with picking stocks or making big decisions, then what are these predictions for, entertainment? Actually an HN comment on Dan Luu’s post about futurists really did suggest that futurists are practically entertainers.
> If a predictor can’t help with picking stocks or making big decisions, then what are these predictions for, entertainment?
Not sure how you constructed that specific sentence from my message.
My point was that most big decisions aren't that sensitive to small timing changes, like stock market can be. Your examples highlight that point: few would change their university choices depending on the knowledge that a future event will happen one year earlier or later.
If you're starting a 4 year degree, whether the bubble bursts tomorrow or 6 years from now isn't that important: what's important is whether you want to start a degree in the bubble's field.
Likewise if you're signing a 30 year mortgage, knowing vaguely that the housing market is precarious is still valuable even if you don't know if it'll collapse tomorrow or in 6 years: you'll be on the hook either way if you sign today
> Anyway, i just wanna get on record that i predict an ai bubble pop event in the next 12 months.
Certainly possible, but I feel like you're very much going out on a limb predicting anything that soon. The market can stay irrational for a surprisingly long time if there's enough money floating around.
But I would be stunned if we don't have an AI bubble pop sometime in the next decade.
For example Kurzweil apparently predicted in 2019 that:
> Blind people wear special glasses that interpret the real world for them through speech. Sighted people also use these glasses to amplify their own abilities. Retinal and neural implants also exist, but are in limited use because they are less useful.
> No
Note that if Kurzweil makes a prediction that an event will occur before year X, and it happens in year X + 1, that still counts as a wrong prediction.
Can you get your un-named source to provide a detailed list of these predictions as Dan Luu did?
Maybe we have different interpretations of whether or not a prediction is correct or not.
If someone predicts in 1999 predicts self driving cars by 2020 and it happens in 2030. That seems different than predicting something we see no indication of ever happening. Like if they predicted 2020 and it happened in 2021 is that a fail. To me, no. The prediction is that the tech will exist at or around that date, not that the date is exact. Claiming it's a fail for being 1 second late is not a rational position and not at all in the spirit the predictions were made.
There's also issues like being directionally correct. Example: Someone says computers will be in everything. You can say "there's no computer's in fruit!, FAIL!" or you can look at the explosion of IoT devices and decide it was mostly right?
I get 17% correct if you're absolutely strict, 64% correct if you're charitable
2009
* Most books will be read on screens rather than paper.
The charitable interpretation is that most reading happens on screens, not paper. This is true today.
* Most text will be created using speech recognition technology.
False
* Intelligent roads and driverless cars will be in use, mostly on highways.
False in 2009, False in 2026 but directionally true. If you live in an area with Waymo you see them all time. I've driven down Olympic Blvd in Los Angeles and had my car surrounded by 5 Waymo cars at once. So is this false because it didn't happen by 2009 or is at least directionally true because it's happening, we see evidence of it happening, vs if we saw zero evidence then we could 100% say it's false.
* People use personal computers the size of rings, pins, credit cards and books.
rings, pins and credit cards, no, books, true. Smartphones are smaller than books. Maybe you could make the argument those are not personal computers. I think that is debatable. Even then, you can by PIs or Mini-PCs that are book size.
* Personal worn computers provide monitoring of body functions, automated identity and directions for navigation.
Arguably true. phones provide directions for navigation and are worn in pockets. Fitbits came out only a few years later. Id is not automated though.
* Cables are disappearing. Computer peripherals use wireless communication.
Arguably true. most laptops, all phones, most mice, keyboards, joypads, etc. are all wireless.
* People can talk to their computer to give commands.
False/True. Was possible was not common. That said, Siri shipped in 2011 so 2 years off.
* Computer displays built into eyeglasses for augmented reality are used.
False if you mean mainstream.
* Computers can recognize their owner's face from a picture or video.
Face ID shipped in 2017. Is that to far off?
* Three-dimensional chips are commonly used.
I'm not sure what this means.
* Sound producing speakers are being replaced with very small chip-based devices that can place high resolution sound anywhere in three-dimensional space.
False,
* A $1,000 computer can perform a trillion calculations per second.
True, happened in 2008 with the ATI Radeon HD 4850
* There is increasing interest in massively parallel neural nets, genetic algorithms and other forms of "chaotic" or complexity theory computing.
Happened in 2012 so 3 years off
* Research has been initiated on reverse engineering the brain through both destructive and non-invasive scans.
Based on the actual words, this is true and was true before the prediction.
* Autonomous nano-engineered machines have been demonstrated and include their own computational controls.
First of all thanks for actually replying with a full list.
> Claiming it's a fail for being 1 second late is not a rational position and not at all in the spirit the predictions were made.
I would keep to the level of precision the predictor themselves claimed. If the predictor said an event would occur at “23:59:59 UTC” it would be fair to criticize them for being a second late. If the predictor claimed an event would occur on a day, fair to criticize them for being a day late, and so on for all units of time.
If a predictor says an event will occur in 2019 but it occurs in 2020, yes that is incorrect, the predictor could have hedged by a year if they wanted to. Why is it the observer’s job to do the hedging rather than the predictor’s job?
> Someone says computers will be in everything. You can say "there's no computer's in fruit!, FAIL!"
While I disagree about the timing, I agree slightly that there is some nuance regarding phrases like “everything”, “everywhere”, “popular” and so on.
However there is a way out for the predictor: use a more specific phrase like “used by over 20% of the US population” instead of “popular”.
Once again (and this applies to the entire page of comments not just yours): why is it the observer’s job to do the hedging rather than the predictor?
On to the specific predictions…
> 2009
* Most books will be read on screens rather than paper.
The charitable interpretation is that most reading happens on screens, not paper. This is true today.
I disagree with the charitable interpretation, there has been plenty of writing outside of books for decades and a person like Kurzweil getting their books published would know that. If the prediction says “books” instead of “writing” it should be judged for that choice.
> * Intelligent roads and driverless cars will be in use, mostly on highways.
False in 2009, False in 2026 but directionally true.
Even if the prediction were true in 2026, 15 years is a long time to be off. A person who decided not to get a driving license thinking that driverless cars are right around the corner would be disappointed. That’s a silly way to behave mainly because when making a decision like that, people have other sources to turn to than Kurzweil.
And where are the “intelligent roads”?
> * Computers can recognize their owner's face from a picture or video.
I look at it like this. I read the book when he made the predictions. Many of them came true. So those predictions were useful to me.
It sounds like for you, the fact that they weren't perfect made them worthless and he's someone who's opinions you should ignore.
I see enough of his predictions as close enough that I think he was worth listening to. He predicted computers would equal the human brain by 2029. The majority of AI researchers now believe it will be even sooner. When he made the prediction, most people thought he was far far far off or maybe even talking science fiction. Yet here we are.
His biggest point was expoential progress very common in many domains. Whatever the state of something is, if it's improving expoentially it will seem like it's not close to being there yet, a short time before it's actually there. A lake that takes 30 days to fill and gets filled double the previous amount every day seems empty for 28 days, at day 28 it's 1/4th full so still looks mostly empty. At day 29 it's 1/2 full. I personally see is exponetial preductions as mostly true.
I think that will be true of self driving cars. They are later than predicted but they exist and are expanding quickly. Waymo is in 14 cities. How many times do they and their competetors have to double before they're ubiquitous? That idea was introduced to me by Kurzweil.
Others have pointed out, once robots can build things they'll be used to build robot factories and they'll explode in proliferation. I don't think Kurzweil made that prediction but I think his books and presentations on exponential growth influenced others to see it in more things.
Let me add further, I think there is value in separating people like Kurzweil (who I think is basically correct) and people like Paul R. Ehrlich who wrote "The Population Bomb" and who's predictions have almost entirely been falsified completely. They weren't even in the correct direction.
The same is true for Ed Zitron. He's not been even directionally correct.
* Blind people wear special glasses that interpret the real world for them through speech. Sighted people also use these glasses to amplify their own abilities.
False
* Retinal and neural implants also exist, but are in limited use because they are less useful.
True. They do exist.
* Deaf people use special glasses that convert speech into text or signs, and music into images or tactile sensations. Cochlear and other implants are also widely used.
False but again, you can get your favorite LLM to read the screen to you today. So directionally true?
* People with spinal cord injuries can walk and climb steps using computer-controlled nerve stimulation and exoskeletal robotic walkers.
False? Though I think you can find examples of this research demonstrated
* Computers are also found inside of some humans in the form of cybernetic implants. These are most commonly used by disabled people to regain normal physical faculties (e.g. Retinal implants allow the blind to see and spinal implants coupled with mechanical legs allow the paralyzed to walk).
False
* Language translating machines are of much higher quality, and are routinely used in conversations.
A few years late but arguably true, go look at all the tourists getting around using Google Lens and built in translation.
* Effective language technologies (natural language processing, speech recognition, speech synthesis) exist
True, but a few years late?
* Access to the Internet is completely wireless and provided by wearable or implanted computers.
Again, the words are in absolutes "completely" but is mostly true. Most people wear a smartphone and it's wireless
* People are able to wirelessly access the Internet at all times from almost anywhere
Same as above
* Devices that deliver sensations to the skin surface of their users (e.g. tight body suits and gloves) are also sometimes used in virtual reality to complete the experience. "Virtual sex"—in which two people are able to have sex with each other through virtual reality, or in which a human can have sex with a "simulated" partner that only exists on a computer—becomes a reality.
True, this exists and existed in 2019. Not common.
* Just as visual- and auditory virtual reality have come of age, haptic technology has fully matured and is completely convincing, yet requires the user to enter a V.R. booth. It is commonly used for computer sex and remote medical examinations. It is the preferred sexual medium since it is safe and enhances the experience.
False, it has not matured.
* Worldwide economic growth has continued. There has not been a global economic collapse.
True
* The vast majority of business interactions occur between humans and simulated retailers, or between a human's virtual personal assistant and a simulated retailer.
False, but it's happening a few years late
* Household robots are ubiquitous and reliable.
False, though Roomba
* Computers do most of the vehicle driving—-humans are in fact prohibited from driving on highways unassisted. Furthermore, when humans do take over the wheel, the onboard computer system constantly monitors their actions and takes control whenever the human drives recklessly. As a result, there are very few transportation accidents.
False, but arguably directionally true. My 2021 Tesla (2 years late) has saved me from accidents when it took control. I've lived in SF and LA where Waymo is common. But, no, it's not most
* Most roads now have automated driving systems—networks of monitoring and communication devices that allow computer-controlled automobiles to safely navigate.
False
* Prototype personal flying vehicles using microflaps exist. They are also primarily computer-controlled.
True? Drones (computer controlled) that can carry humans exist and existed in 2019. They are not common. Maybe you're stuck on the world microflaps
> Humans are beginning to have deep relationships with automated personalities, which hold some advantages over human partners. The depth of some computer personalities convinces some people that they should be accorded more rights.
True in 2023-2024 so just a few years ogg?
* While a growing number of humans believe that their computers and the simulated personalities they interact with are intelligent to the point of human-level consciousness, experts dismiss the possibility that any could pass the Turing Test.
Not sure, plenty of experts claim current LLMs have passed and plenty claim they haven't. So at most this was a few years off
* Human-robot relationships begin as simulated personalities become more convincing.
False. No human robots yet
* Interaction with virtual personalities becomes a primary interface
False
* Public places and workplaces are ubiquitously monitored to prevent violence and all actions are recorded permanently. Personal privacy is a major political issue, and some people protect themselves with unbreakable computer codes.
There's a lot mixed up in this one. Lots of work places and countries have tons of surveillance and for many personal privacy is a major issue.
* The basic needs of the underclass are met. (Not specified if this pertains only to the developed world or to all countries)
False?
* Virtual artists—creative computers capable of making their own art and music—emerge in all fields of the arts.
* The computational capacity of a $4,000 computing device (in 1999 dollars) is approximately equal to the computational capability of the human brain (20 quadrillion calculations per second).
False (though if we're taking FP4 it's only 1 order of magnitude off9
* The summed computational powers of all computers is comparable to the total brainpower of the human race.
False
* Computers are embedded everywhere in the environment (inside of furniture, jewelry, walls, clothing, etc.).
The charitable interpretation is this true. There are plenty of all of those things. Jewelry (apple watch, Oura ring, Walls = LED lighting systems, furniture = message chairs with apps)
* People experience 3-D virtual reality through glasses and contact lenses that beam images directly to their retinas (retinal display). Coupled with an auditory source (headphones), users can remotely communicate with other people and access the Internet.
These special glasses and contact lenses can deliver "augmented reality" and "virtual reality" in three different ways. First, they can project "heads-up-displays" (HUDs) across the user's field of vision, superimposing images that stay in place in the environment regardless of the user's perspective or orientation. Second, virtual objects or people could be rendered in fixed locations by the glasses, so when the user's eyes look elsewhere, the objects appear to stay in their places. Third, the devices could block out the "real" world entirely and fully immerse the user in a virtual reality environment.
False, though all of that has been demonstrated
* People communicate with their computers via two-way speech and gestures instead of with keyboards. Furthermore, most of this interaction occurs through computerized assistants with different personalities that the user can select or customize. Dealing with computers thus becomes more and more like dealing with a human being.
Charitable version is Siri, Alexa. And arguably it's clear it will happen with LLMs so not far off.
* Most business transactions or information inquiries involve dealing with a simulated person.
False in 2019 but seems directionally true in 2026. So many businesses use AI chat and or AI customer service. Even the DMV is now AI.
* Most people own more than one PC, though the concept of what a "computer" is has changed considerably: Computers are no longer limited in design to laptops or CPUs contained in a large box connected to a monitor. Instead, devices with computer capabilities come in all sorts of unexpected shapes and sizes.
True? Most people own a phone and a smart TV or a phone and tablet, or a phone and watch or a phone and video game system.
* Cables connecting computers and peripherals have almost completely disappeared.
Arguably false, otherwise I wouldn't have so many cables.
* Rotating computer hard drives are no longer used.
Directionally true. The average person has a phone, tablet, PC, TV, PS5, Switch, with SSD, not rotating HD. Hard drives are still common in data centers and geek media hubs
* Three-dimensional nanotube lattices are the dominant computing substrate.
False
* Massively parallel neural nets and genetic algorithms are in wide use.
True in 2026, No idea if it was true behind the scenes in 2019.
* Destructive scans of the brain and noninvasive brain scans have allowed scientists to understand the brain much better. The algorithms that allow the relatively small genetic code of the brain to construct a much more complex organ are being transferred into computer neural nets.
No idea
* Pinhead-sized cameras are everywhere.
False, but if you want to be charitable, cameras everywhere (Amazon Ring, Google Nest, etc...) are everywhere.
* Nanotechnology is more capable and is in use for specialized applications, yet it has not yet made it into the mainstream. "Nanoengineered machines" begin to be used in manufacturing.
No idea. It's true it's not yet made it into the mainstream. But there are many "nano-materials"
* Thin, lightweight, handheld displays with very high resolutions are the preferred means for viewing documents. The aforementioned computer eyeglasses and contact lenses are also used for this same purpose, and all download the information wirelessly.
Arguably true. The majority of phones have a very high resolution display and it's where most data is viewed. The 2nd part is false.
* Computers have made paper books and documents almost completely obsolete.
Again, charitably, the majority of text and documents are not digital.
* Most learning is accomplished through intelligent, adaptive courseware presented by computer-simulated teachers. In the learning process, human adults fill the counselor and mentor roles instead of being academic instructors. These assistants are often not physically present, and help students remotely.
False, maybe directionally true. I know lots of people and kids that LLMs, not humans to learn things.
* Students still learn together and socialize, though this is often done remotely via computers.
True. Tons of children socialize remotely. They also learned remotely (COVID)
* All students have access to computers.
True? Does this fail on the word "all" or does it pass because it's mostly true.
* Most human workers spend the majority of their time acquiring new skills and knowledge.
I can agree that the Gemini usage number is a marketing number NOT to be taken at face value. And so does Dan Luu, in the "Some reactions to Zitron" section of the article:
> BTW, a funny thing about Gemini hitting 500M users being "so unrealistic that someone at Google should have been fired, and that someone is Sundar Pichai" is that Zitron has also (incorrectly) said that Google doesn't know how to grow, and that as a result they're shoving AI everywhere. Dennis Snell pointed out that, if Zitron takes his own statement seriously, Google can make Gemini's user numbers go to any number it wants by doing the exact thing Zitron said they would do, sticking AI everywhere.
> You can't actually take Zitron's statement about Google's lack of growth leading to AI desperation seriously and also take it seriously when he says that Sundar is committing some kind of gross malpractice by naming a number like 500M users.
Other than the Gemini usage numbers, which are the marketing numbers being taken at face value?
> AI is a tool. It outputs things only when asked to.
This is not entirely accurate if we consider agentic loops.
> Asking it requires skill.
Considering the realm of writing a blog post instead of programming, what is the skill? I suspect there is extremely little. But I could be wrong, tell me what skill you think went into this.
> and give me any LLM and I couldn’t have written this piece.
Prompt your LLM of choice to generate 100 articles about different aspects of joining a new role, then you won’t need to provide the insights into the specific situations the author described. All you need to do is pay for the tokens.
> Does the conceit come from the idea of “some LLM wrote this, so anyone could”?
Yes.
> Well, you didn’t.
Do you know that? What’s stopping someone from asking an LLM to generate an entire HN front page worth of articles, and reading that list instead of HN?
This really is a problem with the health of the site in my opinion. If there are a flood of AI generated articles in the top spot, the value proposition of HN as a site is diminished.
Hey, thanks for taking the time to respond to feedback.
I believe there is a societal problem here, not specific to your particular actions. The expectation that communications should be “cleaned up” and “professional” in the first place comes from a bygone era. In the 2010s and earlier removing all typos, fixing wording, formatting the text and adding images were all signals that someone put extra care into sending their message. But in the present that just indicates use of AI.
You mentioned in another comment that your hand-drawn images would be “far worse”. Leaving aside whether any images were needed at all, a hand-drawn scribble in the 2010s might be unprofessional but in the present day there’s an AI generated image on every visible surface. A hand-drawn image, even a bad one, would actually make you stand out.
Even if you want to present the cleaned up version, you could also provide the original audio.
Appreciate the feedback and I don't necessarily disagree with your points - the societal argument is an interesting one.
I do think it's interesting that some people are immediately turned off of something because of the whiff of AI even if they like the actual idea or content.
Will likely experiment with different ways of writing in the future!
broadly speaking AI has shown itself to be unreliable in a lot of domains so even if its strongest feature is in fact language, it still carries a readers predisposed experiences with the tech.
That is just one problem. You also have to contend with the onslaught of AI generated content that is being used in deliberately fake articles, online personas and the mountains and mountains of things people and entities are trying to push to make a buck. Scams, misinformation, state-sponsored propaganda, a lot of things that are arguably bad for society. So if you consider that, you must also accept that you are making a choice to use a linguistic style that is used by many websites that are vectors that do harm or deliberately mislead (which also does harm).
Even if the ideas are of your own merit, you can't expect readers to always do the literary surgery it will take to identify that.That's extra investigative work and assessment that was never a part of anyones reportoire before all this took off. But at this point i don't think you should be surprised that AI writing isn't met with open arms, AI writing has become a pain point for a lot of people in their personal lives and their work lives, a lot of organizations are wounding themselves as people throw their ideas around curated in AI and everyone's eyes are glazing over. It's become synonymous with "this guy does not understand the claude proposal he just sent me". And the choice is yours if you still want to use it knowing that, I just don't think you should be surprised if it doesn't get the reception you hoped for.
Plus, you should lean into whatever your monologue is to write. Even if you're afraid it's not pro enough, like. That's writing. It's a journey it has crossover with your ability to communicate it defines you as a person. Keep sharpening that tool and you have untold ways to convey ideas exactly the way you want people to experience them for the first time.
I currently don’t use ad blockers. The only time I used ad blockers was when a previous employer specifically asked me to, when using a company machine.
> Can't understand why they put up with it
To see which (rare) sites don’t put up a million ads and actually care about the reading experience.
A lot of the top-listed sites on HN are small blogs without ads (or in the case of danluu.com or lwn.net - without almost any formatting).
daringfireball.net is notable for actually having small, non-intrusive ads that I wouldn’t ever feel the need to block (unless you consider the entire site an ad for Apple but that’s a seperate concern).
> do they just think that it's part and parcel of the internet to have every page look like a slot machine from hell?
It is integral to the business models of the sites putting up those ads. And if those sites don’t make money then they’ll also be unable to pay writers. Much like herd immunity or financial speculation there will always be “somebody else” to watch the ads and essentially subsidize the ad-blocking audience, but I’d rather not be one of those people, I want my usage to be worth the while for the writers.
I am sometimes (rarely) willing to pay for an ad-free experience if I’m a repeat visitor. But more often I’d rather not visit at all if a site is too annoying. Another unfortunate situation is that even if you pay for a subscription, some sites have no ad-free option, such as the New York Times.
The big exception is YouTube, where I visit often, am bombarded with ads but also don’t want to pay Google.
In an ideal world, I would do exactly what you do. I don't WANT to block ads everywhere. I would love to support my favorite websites, and if watching a couple of ads is what it takes for them to stay online, then I don't really mind.
Problem is, the ads I see when I disable my ad-blocker are uniformly terrible. Maybe this is because I'm in India, but I've never once seen an ad that wasn't outright disgusting, let alone useful.
I regularly see ads for: escort services, shady hair loss prevention pills, shady weight loss pills, astrology, TV shows and movies in languages I don't understand, gacha games, gambling apps, educational programs I can't sign up for, apps that are clearly malware. Once Instagram inexplicably showed me ads for expensive lab equipment only available in Germany for a whole week.
I would like to see ads for: local businesses around me, concerts and gigs in my city, new restaurants around me, indie fashion brands, TV shows and movies in languages I can understand. Basically, ads based on my interests and recent search terms.
The ad networks insist on delivering the worst kinds of ads to me, sometimes accompanied by imagery I would prefer not to see (e.g hair loss and dermatology ads). The websites I frequent and want to support don't get to choose what ads I'll see. All they can do is insert the ad-network's JavaScript into their pages and hope for the best.
Unless the networks can guarantee that I won't see something illegal, harmful, or plain disgusting when I enable their ads, I'll keep my ad-blocker on. I'm not going hurt myself for somebody else's business model.
While I think I agree with you in principle, it's worth pointing out that at least some of these targeted/relevant ads you want come with privacy concerns which, at least in my opinion, are just as important if not more so than the content/experience of the ads themselves.
Either way though, GP putting the responsibility on the viewer, at this point - given what we know about how the ad companies operate and use our data - is just absurd. We're not the ones who burned up any good will in this particular social contract.
In theory site owners could be more selective about the ad networks they partner with. They bear a responsibility for a poor user experience, but many don’t care.
I remember hearing about a lawsuit several years ago from several news organizations against an ad blocking company in which they described themselves as “ad companies that serve content” as opposed to “content companies that serve ads”.
To be fair to the news organizations, ads are very probably their primary source of revenue.
The "get a bunch of people looking at something interesting and then show them ads" business model has under-pinned newspapers, television, and now websites like Facebook, Reddit and Instagram.
The content was always kind of a side show, an excuse to serve you ads.
An example of an actual content company would be something like a movie studio, where the product is the actual movie, or a publishing house, where the product is an actual book.
Newspapers, television channels and YouTube, however, are making their money selling your attention to advertisers. So I think calling them "ad companies that serve content" is actually correct.
The situation has been manufactured by the advertising industry such that the individual's rational response, blocking ads for multiple reasons, hurts the web in the long run. At the end, it will be said, "it was the ad blockers' faults", not "there were too many ads + tracking systems and ads could contain malware"
it feels odd to me to praise it as beautifully crafted without mentioning that it's essentially stock AI aesthetics
to me craft is a human quality, I don't look at Ikea cabinets and praise their craft for example, and I'll admit that some of them are quite nice... it's just not the same process
The essay is more concerned with the definition of “technology” than the definition of “science fiction”. It merely points out that distinguishing between hard and soft sci-fi by the presence of technology is folly, since even Bronze Age technology is still technology.
Hatchet has technology - the titular hatchet, along with the airplane that crashed and the various items the protagonist collects at the end. But the presence of technology in the work does not determine if it is science fiction or not.
This is straying away from the article, but if Hatchet were dictated to a tribe who didn’t have metallurgy, perhaps it could be perceived as science fiction.
And what exactly is the benefit to you to having a data centre specifically in the area you live? Seems to me that far from “irrational hordes”, the protestors are standing up for their interests above the interests of the AI companies.
reply