It’s an old conversation and it’s not you.

I don’t have links to anything on hand, but you’re not the first and won’t be the last to wonder about this and (maybe) start criticising it.

I also can’t give you the technical details (I’ve even forgotten a lot since I last cared about this), but basically, IIRC, it’s as you intuit … The platforms can be in the fediverse and still do kinda their own thing such that platform interop is not well guaranteed, arguably at all.

In the end, I convinced my self it’s a core problem of federated social media and failing at it was a huge missed opportunity to have an awesome feature that the commercial platforms lacked. “Federation happened in the client” was my way of trying to capture this perspective.

BlueSky probably doesn’t do any better but they architecture and protocol might point in the right direction.

I’m anti-AI, essentially, but I think this touches on what may be an important arc in all this (very speculatively at least).

Namely, maybe humanity had ~20 years to make tech “good” (or not bad), from 1990 to 2010 say, and failed. Or maybe missed the mark.

What that would look like, I’m not sure exactly, but I wonder how much your general sentiments are distributed amongst tech people — how much the average person who’s substantially touched tech is just over all of the minutiae, yak shaving, boilerplate, poor documentation, inconsistencies, backwards incompatibilities … etc etc. Just how much we’ve all been burnt out on the idea of this as a skill and now just feel it’s more like herding cats.

All such that AI isn’t just making up for all the ways tech is bad, but a big wake up call on what we even want it to be.

And even if there is some productivity positive, there’s also the question of whether there’s a negative that’s hidden, not understood or not spoken about. Eg - thinking you’ve done your job but it’s actually sloppy and forcing someone else to clean up after you.

And best of all, none of the fears associated with wide spread solar have materialized into real world problems.

What were/are these fears?

It’s shit like this that makes me glad to be completely outside of the AI hype circus. It sounds toxically unhinged. In the sense that being into this sort of dynamic and vibe, I suspect, at some point, involves some unhealthy attitudes, desires, sentiments and directions.

Like, I suspect some anti-AI sentiments come from just finding it creepy to be into having a digital slave … and, conversely, being pro-AI must involve being into that kind of energy and dynamic to some extent, all irrespective of the productive aspect.

Generally, IMO, everything wrong with AI has been all the stuff other than the AI itself.

The Capitalist urge to eat and digest the world, as well as its herd-hype mentality.

But also the strong willingness many have had to just accept an information overlord as though it’s a religious oracle or something. All without any critical consideration of what’s happening. I blame our education systems for stagnating at some point in the past few decades — which, along with an unmitigated embrace of big corp capitalism, left us wholly unprepared for big tech’s consumption of society.

There’s also what I’d call “the slavery urge” at play I think. At some point, an AGI will probably be conscious. But everyone is clearly so ready to turn it into our work slaves. All while pretending its output belongs to them because they “prompted it”.

Then there’s the whole attention span being eaten thing, and quick always being ordered over good amongst an ever growing pile of increasingly shitty things.

Yea I got the general or vague impression that this was reminiscent of their initial maps roll out.

Are any heads gonna roll for this?

You’re not alone. It happens! I’m around the 10 mark I think.

I agree. Multi communities are great. But managing a community’s connectivity with such features makes a lot of sense too!

Hear hear!

The whole thing about early internet nostalgia is definitely interesting and pertinent for the fediverse! While I think there’s something to the pre big-algorithmic-social internet, I think your point is very well made … there was plenty of trashiness too, and as you say, problematic homogeneity.

Meanwhile there’s a lot of “let’s just get back to the original Internet” energy on the fediverse … and yea … I’ve felt for a while this was a doomed mindset. Not just because there’s really no going back, but because it almost certainly is rose tinted glasses, which becomes apparent once you start assessing its libertarian premises, and how they failed, critically (again, as you say!)

Aahh … the good shit comments sections were made for! Thank you!

Surprising twists there about the tomb having been vacated by Egyptians due to flooding with the second tomb yet to be discovered.

Yep! Embracing boredom is likely the path back. Because it’s not a dead space. It’s a canvas.

I’ve been starting to think that it’s something us older millennials can actually do for our younger friends … remind, demo and teach what a less tech ruled life can look like, how tech can be treated as more humane and not a necessity.

Not to claim equivalence or anything, but smartphone and the internet (ironic saying so here I know).

I’m a xennial … old enough to remember living without all this and the middle time where computers were either games or just useful tools.

For me, and I’m pretty sure many others, I’m pretty convinced it’s better that way.

I’d really like to get away from these things, at least just to relearn older habits.

Thank you!

I’ve only watched the first minute or two, but I think I get the idea. Clickbaity generalisations etc … yea that makes sense and are obviously shitty (I guess I just expect that more from YouTubers who are otherwise reasonable people).

The whole “most research is BS” claim isinteresting though. I’ll be interested to see how the video addresses it. If we’re talking about >50%, and that it’s substantially imperfect in its constitution due to systemic issues, I dunno, I’d be interested in an actual investigation TBH.

Thanks again though!

as people are losing more and more faith in academic research and science

Counter argument: it’s happening with or without her and it’d be better to rationally highlight the issues rather than allow the uneducated to hijack the issue.

IME, the biggest deflator of faith in science etc for laypeople are their friends who left academia telling their own stories aligned with Sabine’s general point.

Broadly, I’d wager the erosion of faith in research is a much bigger picture and getting to the bottom of the causes is more important than getting precious about maintaining the status quo.

Sabine is the poster child for science populism. She got chewed out by academia for having mediocre research ideas and now she loves to claim that there’s a conspiracy to take funding from her favorite fringe fields and give it to the establishment.

Gotta say you’ve got me sceptical.

I don’t follow her closely and am no mega fan or anything. But it’s not like it’s uncommon for good people to get pushed out of academia for shitty reasons.

Plus, I don’t think you need to conjure conspiracy theories before you start arguing that there are dominant dogmas, cultures, practices and even some sort of “establishment”. I’d wonder how many fields of science don’t have some internally recognised “establishment” and “counter-establishment” ideas.

And I’m not sure I see the “poster child … populism” claim? Sure, she’s probably popular, but for my money she does a decent job of YouTube science. Not sure she’s a household name or all over tv or anything.

Got any more substantive links/sources about her being mediocre or conspiratorial?

Yes this basically.

I don’t follow Sabine closely, but I’d presume she’d at least in principal be capable of appreciating the value of even random exploration and serendipity.

But what this is about is an elitism bubble that rewards playing along rather than embracing the serendipity facilitating sorts of diversity and counter culture and iconoclasm in research approaches.

A great summary I’ve heard on this, from a very elite researcher, is that you can’t tell where good research is going to come from. If forced to chose between a lab of Nobel prize winners and one of new comers, you’d may as well split the funding evenly. It seems to me that the productionisation of research and academia has gone too far and is the problem.

Yep. And it’s a point well made.

To me it all comes down to the consequences of 1) wanting the work to not just be easier but literally not involve thinking, and 2) how little attention people are paying to where these tools come from: just training on the whole Internet, not some intelligent analytical task specific tooling.

Big and obvious consequences fall out of these I think, and I’m a little frightened how little people think and talk about this.