mdjank t1_j2xze5c wrote
Reply to comment by futurespacecadet in They say we're past "social media" and are now in the age of algorithms: the "recommendation media." by retepretepretep
There are major problems with a happiness algorithm.
First how do you measure a person's level of happiness? The person's emotional state is not a metric in the system.
An algorithm can decide if a piece of media is uplifting but it cannot say if that media would produce the desired effect on an individual. It can only predict the media's effect on a group of individuals.
You can ask individuals about their mental state and measure changes after presenting stimuli. That introduces all the problems of self reporting. e.g. People lie.
Second, a solution to happiness already exists. It's called "delete your social media". Any "happiness algorithm" has to compete with this as a solution.
"Delete your social media" is such an effective solution that Social Media will lie to you to make it seem incomprehensible. It tells you "social media is the only way to be connected with others" and "you're 'in the know' because you use social media and that makes you special".
futurespacecadet t1_j2y0sme wrote
Well, I don’t think there is some magic, happiness algorithm, I’m just saying the concept of it. What would create happiness in an algorithm form? I think control.
I think control over what people see is pivotal to how they interact and I think we need to give back control to the users .
So maybe when you sign up, you can choose what you want to see, if you do want politics, maybe you can choose the level at what politics you see. Do you want to be challenged, do you want to be in a bubble? I mean that in itself could cause problems.
But I also think we don’t need any of that, I think what people really, like it was the fact that Facebook used to just be about connecting with your friends, purely a communication tool before it was bloated with wanting to be everything else like on marketplace and an advertisement center and pages for clubs etc
It’s the same thing that’s happening with LinkedIn. Are used to be affective as just a job search tool, and now it is bloated with politics. I don’t care about I would rather have more services that the one specific thing rather than one service that tries to do it all and I think that’s where people are getting overwhelmed and depressed.
mdjank t1_j2ycwdp wrote
The way statistical learners (algorithms) work is by using a labeled dataset of features to determine the probability a new entry should be labeled as 'these' or 'those'. You then tell it if it is correct or not. The weights of the features used in its determination are then adjusted and the new entry is added to the dataset.
The points you have control over are the labels used, the defined features and decision validation. The algorithm interprets these things by abstraction. No one has any direct control on how the algorithm correlates features and labels. We can only predict the probabilities of how the algorithm might interpret things.
In the end, the correlations drawn by the algorithm are boolean. 100% one and none of the other. All nuance is thrown out. It will determine which label applies most and that will become 'true'. If you are depressed, it will determine the most depressed you. If you are angry, it will determine the most angry you.
You can try to adjust feature and label granularity for a semblance of nuance. This only changes the time needed to determine 'true'. In the end, all nuance will still be lost and you'll be left with a single 'true'.
People already have the tools to control how their algorithms work. They just don't understand how the algorithms work so they misuse the tools they have.
Think about "Inside Out" by Pixar. You can try to make happy all the time but at some point you get happy and sad. The algorithm cannot make that distinction. It's either happy or sad.
Pseudonymico t1_j341oz6 wrote
> Second, a solution to happiness already exists. It's called "delete your social media". Any "happiness algorithm" has to compete with this as a solution.
>"Delete your social media" is such an effective solution that Social Media will lie to you to make it seem incomprehensible.
That really depends on who you are though. Social media really is a huge game changer for people who can’t get out of the house for whatever reason - in particular people with disabilities, parents of young children, and the elderly, along with other marginalised groups who can have trouble connecting in person such as the queer community. “Deleting your social media” for these kinds of groups means going back to being an isolated shut-in, and that’s part of why a lot just won’t do it. Regulating algorithms is a better solution by far imo.
mdjank t1_j34gvh4 wrote
Social media makes it easier for people to find their communities specifically because of the way statistical learners (algorithms) work. Statistical learners work by using statistics to predict the probabilities of specific outcomes. It matches like with like. Regulating the functionality of statical learners would require the invention of new math that supersedes everything we know about statistics.
Regulation is easier said than done.
It is not possible to regulate how the algorithms work. That would be like trying to regulate the entropy of a thermodynamic system. Eliot Nash won a Pulitzer for his paper on equilibriums. Statistical Learners solve Nash Equilibriums the hard way.
One thing people suggest is manipulating the algorithm's inputs. This only changes the time it takes to reach the same conclusions. The system will still decay into equilibrium.
Maybe it's possible to regulate how and where algorithms are implemented. Even then, you're still only changing the time it takes to solve the Nash Equilibrium. I would love to see someone disprove this claim. Disproving that claim would mean the invention of new math that can be used to break statistics. I would be in Vegas before the next sunrise with that math on my belt.
Any effective regulation on the implementation of statistical learners would be indistinguishable from people just deleting their social media. Without the Statistical Learners to help people more effectively sort themselves into communities, there is no social media. These algorithms are what defines social media.
To claim that people wouldn't be able to find their communities without social media is naive at best. People were finding their communities online long before social media used statistical learners to make it easier. If anything, social media was so effective that other methods could not compete. It has been around so long; it just seems like the only solution.
P.S. Your thinly veiled argumentum ad passiones isn't without effect. Still, logos doesn't care about your pathos.
Pseudonymico t1_j34hg0r wrote
> P.S. Your thinly veiled argumentum ad passiones isn't without effect. Still, logos doesn't care about your pathos.
Good grief, are we back in Plato’s Academy or something?
mdjank t1_j35exxw wrote
Going back to school might do you some good.
Pseudonymico t1_j35gr7p wrote
Argumentum ad latinum ≠ argumentum ad verecundiam
mdjank t1_j35n8pt wrote
Which begs the question; why do you think appealing to the needs of the downtrodden and infirmed is a valid argument for not deleting your social media?
Or maybe you're confusing reference to a specific field of mathematics as an appeal to authority?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments