upvote
Social media is not even the worst threat vector, in my opinion. It’s Anthropic/OpenAI/Google, whom people are giving an unprecedented level of access to their innermost thoughts.

We have not yet seen* the kind of large-scale, individually targeted psychological manipulation that cloud AI products can deliver. And I have no doubt the likes of Dario Amodei and Sam Altman will show us, if we give them enough time.

* I suppose the GPT-4o sycophancy/AI psychosis crisis was a preview, but that was just blunt “engagement” tuning.

reply
The largest social media company in the world by several orders of magnitude is Meta, who are both using data collected from their social media platforms to train their AI models and improve ad targeting. Meta also offers AI chat bots on their platforms (FB Messenger and WhatsApp), to capture those innermost thoughts.

Don’t count out Zuckerberg, he’s very good at being a villain.

reply
The mother of social media is free TV.

We tend to forget that both, the social and the media part, input and output, are interpersonal, first.

Ad targeting doesn't need improvement. The incentives offered to people with an adverse attitude towards Ads are shit. Think of incentives as having effects and side effects. It's about intent. Free TV had that down ages ago. It was awesome. But they fucked market entry and whole population segments, more or less conservative and/or liberal as well as more or less authentic sub-cultural patchworks were left unserved.

That wasn't even nonsense! MTV, suddenly going away? Uhm, guys, I only get Peeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee... beep boop bop beep boop bop beep... BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP... (pause) ...brr-ding... brr-ding... Krrrrrrrrrrr-shhhhhhhhhhhh-eeeeeeeeeee-awwwwwwwww-eeeeeeeeeee... Bong-bong-bong... KSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH (click).

Silence ...

around here, and then a lot of popups, ads, .... you know, the wild wild west of internet history ...

We talked TV on the street and in school. And Video games. Now Netflix et al and your feed, too. Who's roofs is most of that media industrial complex under?

Thinking Meta et al and their ads infrastructure and UX weighs as much as that of Free TV is falling for a rather simple Kansas City Shuffle.

"New", only now native media still doesn't interface as well with the brain and our emotional processing as TV and "The News" do. And won't until Neuralink et al get their interfaces all the way up your ... lobes.

Forget Zuckerberg et al and let them do their jobs. They don't need publicity, they need to filter for suitable test subjects, edge case pop segments whose needs & desires are yet to be fulfilled.

There's still a lot of people out there with something to put on the market but they can't because a little something is missing and nobody seems to know why ... something double long running on the news maybe?

reply
> We have not yet seen* the kind of large-scale, individually targeted psychological manipulation that cloud AI products can deliver.

We did. Pre-WW II ..., and afterwards, the old, everlasting Cold War (vs the new one). And there are self-emerging/self-organizing buckets of people who all pledged their allegiance to ideas and plans, works forever in progress and aggregating jobs and expanding industries. People with value and virtue systems, radicalized or called to some need-to-know duty. And the personal level was always covered by applied and philosophical psychology, cultural discourses, however progressively or decadently lead by public figures while peoples' desires were and still are shaped by interactions, social AND parasocial.

Shouldn't we stop wondering whether they have enough time, now that several hundreds of thousands of hours of work already done and work yet to get done are neatly compressed into a few instants?

AI will always be "two" things:

- a search engine that misses less and less and is just waiting for you to increase your processing power - a tool to cope with your laziness or disability by deferring or skipping intervals of learning curves and/or biomechanics - an evergrowing compendium of abstractions and intents, formalized or not, by humans, for humans, off humans (even when it's AI)

but that's irrelevant ... because humans will always be only "two" things, as well.

So, ... the threat vector remains unchanged, however AI, accessibility and skill will amplify or change the landscape: casually, no, leisurely ignorant bystanders.

reply
I didn't realize that we'd start creating Westworld quite so quickly.
reply
Social media is also AI now, so I don't really see the difference.
reply
Sadly, this is the reality.

> 59% of videos served to a new TikTok account’s For You page were AI slop

97% of videos under the #cartoonkids hashtag were AI slop

57.4% of TikToks in the Kids category were AI slop

Source: https://www.kapwing.com/resources/the-tiktok-ai-slop-report

reply
depends. I, for one, take control of what I consume on social media. Bluesky's design allows this. YouTube also, if you turn off recommendations, lose watch history, and vet your subscriptions
reply
What makes you think they’d restrict this to logged in accounts? Not so long ago, Meta got caught building “ghost” social media profiles for people who didn’t have accounts on their platforms. They essentially constructed a “missing puzzle piece” based on people this person knew who did have profiles in publicly available information. Building a psychosocial profile on a user who has not set up an account yet using AI would be trivial.
reply
excuse me? I didn't say that anyone restricts anything, I only said that I take effort to curate what I see
reply
Has been going on for a long time in the adtech space.
reply
deleted
reply
What crisis and engagement tuning are you referring to?
reply
We are doing to our brains and our children the same thing we are doing to pigs in cages, squezeeing every last cent until the planet burns down.
reply
> until the planet burns down.

Common misconception. We won't kill the planet even if we tried to. Wed make it too hard to sustain billions of humans, sure. But they are very different things

reply
The planet will still be here even if it burns down. After London burned down, there was still London. It was just burned down.
reply
Sure, and the planet survived the Permian-Triassic extinction event. Cold comfort to 70% of the terrestrial vertebrate species at the time.
reply
This is a good distinction because its a common idea but its based on a conflation: human civilizationhealth and planet health. Planet health is hard to even think about apart from humans but the planet in no way “needs” us.
reply
You say that, but run away greenhouse gases can sterilize the entire planet, like Venus.
reply
Fortunately that particular extreme scenario doesn't seem likely. Radiance scales with the fourth power of temperature, and we're not filling the atmosphere with Venus levels of sulfuric acid. Our CO2 output will be self-limiting when it kills us and we stop outputting it.
reply
Sure, it will "only" look like another one of the Big Five extinction events.
reply
We've already caused one of those and it's ongoing. Wiping ourselves out would actually end it.
reply
Are you sure it would end it?
reply
We won't kill it, but we can try to burn it. Conflagration comes to mind.
reply
Like a burned out brick building, a burned down planet is still there, but still also burned down. Of course it doesn't 'disappear'
reply
Not even close chief.

Earth has been a rich, life sustaining planet in far hotter conditions then anything we are projected to take it to.

We can kill billions of ourselves, but short of ww3 earth will crack on just fine.

Social media emotional hot-takes dont match the numbers.

We are still screwed though.

reply
There's always the Death Star angle.
reply
> Let's hope our regulations hit these "social networks" hard enough so that never dare deploy this kind of technology.

You'd do as well to hope that people wake up and stop opening the damned sites

reply
you really have to catch the moment to do this, and there must be someone else who is supportive of this idea.

my mother recently got served a quite... disturbing video on Facebook. I won't get into details of the vid. what I can tell is that she was so dazed that she didn't even immediately understand me when I asked her, "delete Facebook and Instagram immediately or else they will think you like it and will serve you more." she kept replaying this video in her head. in a moment, I thought I wouldn't make her snap out.

for context, she is a damned Reels addict with war-induced traumas. (Ukrainian here.) she agreed to delete Facebook but decided to keep Instagram. we frequently pick bones about her sending stupid Reels and me hating them with passion. and every time I said "delete Instagram and your life will go up," she brought up scandals until she talked to a therapist.

EDIT: to quote a sibling comment, this is, indeed, like dealing with a drug addict.

reply
Ah, just like drug addicts put down their poppies...
reply
I am surprised that no comment has yet mentioned Infinite Jest (which I'm still yet to complete - it's been years since I started).
reply
if you're interested in completing it, check out the 30th anniversary audiobook, it just came out a few months ago, very accessible
reply
Curious how the audiobook deals with the end notes? They are crucial imo.
reply
it interleaves the end note in the text at the point where the endnote is referenced (by number), reads the endnote, and then sounds a bell to indicate that we've returned to the main text.

Sometimes endnotes reference other endnotes and you have to wait until the point in the text, e.g. endnote 304 is referenced from earlier endnotes than it occurs in the text (rather late in the book) and you just have to wait until endnote 304 is read to find out what it is. that's a bit of a disadvantage, but infinite jest is the kind of book that you really need to read multiple times in order to get it anyways.

reply
That seems reasonable! I’ll check that out.

And yes, I agree. Im on my second read through now. The first time I skipped the first ~50 end notes. I thought the creator of infinite jest was a mystery, same with Joelles deformity (“was she really mangled or not— maybe we find out at the end!”). Oh, those two things are spelled out clearly in early end notes..

Any DFW fans here want to conjecture as to what “atemporal” jazz Pemulis listens to? I was thinking maybe some albert manglesdorf or perhaps ornette coleman..

reply
Care to elaborate for those that haven't started tackling this tome yet?
reply
I think parent is referring to the film in the novel, also named Infinite Jest. The film is so compelling that its viewers lose all interest in anything other than repeatedly viewing it, and thus eventually die.
reply
This occurred to rats who had levers wired directly to their reward centers.
reply
All glory to hypnotoad!
reply
That would be ideal, but I think we're heading straight for Idiocracy's 'Ow! My Balls'.
reply
Sounds like some people are trying to develop Snow Crash.
reply
Carfentanyl potentcy is roughly 10,000 times morphine. The pursuit of optimized technology usually far outpaces regulation or any kind of control. As technologies are controlled, even the lessened availability of more potent types causes an enormous overall issue. Humans are obsessive-compulsive optimizers, for good and for ill.
reply
I think you're giving this a bit too much credence. And I think you also think there's something special about sorting videos by how often they're viewed in a recent timeframe (which is all you need to recreate evil social media algorithm)
reply
If you're relying on government regulation to solve this, I guess the obvious bigger question would be "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
reply
there's not gonna be a regulation and even if there is, the damage would already be done. If you want to protect yourself, then best thing is to just delete the account and apps.
reply
Stop calling them “social” media. They have not been that since algorithmic feeds driving infinite scroll replaced updates from your friends. That was more than a decade ago.

There is nothing at all social about the latest generation like TikTok and YouTube Shorts.

reply
If YouTube is social media, anything with a comments section is social media, even the old "guestbooks" of web 1.0 days were social media. It's a pointless term whoever uses it.
reply
Youtube is very obviously social media. It is a platform that serves algorithmically sorted third party content based on user preferences and a network of accounts that a user follows, and it allows communication between users through comments. It has communities. It has memes. It is certainly addictive in all of the ways social media can be.
reply
Algorithmic media
reply
Now apply it to porn
reply
Don't forget it's not "the platforms" doing this, it's people like you and me, maybe even people reading this message. We, they, are building this, and don't care about anything as long the paycheck comes. This is the reality.
reply
Speak for yourself, I would rather clean toilets for a living than work on these mind-destroying technologies
reply
I suspect OP was referring to not only working for these platforms but also creating content or even consuming it.
reply
There's actual real people working on this bullshit. Horrifying doesn't even come close.
reply
They have information barriers to keep the non-sociopaths from understanding the horror they're working on. Military forces do the same thing. Even the German train drivers didn't know what kind of facilities their trains were going to or why.
reply