Mourning media
Between PopSci going away and Sports Illustrated copping to using AI sock puppet columnists, I am mourning another piece of the media landscape I grew up with.
The way we communicate and disseminate information has always changed, and our minds change with it. I try to keep that in mind when thinking about the future of information.
The reason this all feels somewhat different is that what's coming next is not information. There is no basis of trust. It is filler, insofar as it is the cheesy center of the stuffed crust that makes you tolerate the doughy ads around it.
And that's for outlets that can still eke out a living through advertising. For the rest, it'll just be vapid content to justify existing. But what's the point of a {magazine, blog, newspaper} if all it does is drive clicks and shares, but spreads no real information?
Let me try to salvage this post. The long march of media has usually brought us to some kind of improvement in communicating ideas—improvement on some axis anyhow. But these failing business models, coupled with the use of LLMs as a cost savings measure—seem only destined to worsen media across the board.
Perhaps the positive will be in whatever emerges from the rubble as the old edifices crumble under their own hollowed-out weight.
Mourning media
@mttaggart The thing here is that we are assuming that media wasn't always this way. Back in the old days, newspapers were incentivized by sales, tv by ratings, and todays online articles by clicks.
The real incentive was never to spread real information, there was always monetary or political incentive to spread bs.
All that's happening is that nowadays, with the advent of LLM, that has become a bit to obvious.
Mourning media
@mttaggart That was an interesting read, however, I half disagree with several points. First of all, the problem with regulation is the assumption that the regulator cares, imagine for example, if suddenly China or Russia where exclusively the ones in charge of regulation, would you like that? Likewise, if you ask a russian if he would like the US to be the sole regulator, I think he would hate it to. I'm not saying regulation is bad, just that there must be (part 1)
Mourning media
@mttaggart Descentralized, federated, transparent regulation. Also regarding the job related stuff, you wrote how a publisher suddenly received way too many submissions and he just couldn't get through it, the way I see it, is that it's an increase in demand, and therefore probability to add jobs there. Don't get me wrong, transitioning from one model of work to another is always painful due to the firings and what not, but I think slowing development (part 2)
Mourning media
@mttaggart will only make that painful frame of time even longer. Also, I think that this issues with "Truth" can represent an opportunity for society to focus on critical thinking and evaluating what they hear. There is a cost in having untruthful information, for example, an investor with fake info will quickly lose all his money, a professional who can't properly do it's job due to fake info will quickly be fired, and so on (part 3)
Mourning media
@mttaggart Because truth is important, it has value, and something has value because it brings value (in terms of money, time, and whatnot) to ones life. And in the exact same way that in the past, societies that discovered metal working had an edge over other civilizations and forced said civilizations to also develop metal working. Civilizations that figure out how to manage this new situation will have and edge over others (part 4)
Mourning media
@mttaggart Plus all the advantages that can come with LLMs and said model could be replicated im other parts of the world. And I think whatever solution comes from that, it will be related to society actually caring about critical thinking of the people and not just mindlessly navigating life.
I'm aware that I may be too optimistic and that I may have biases I'm not aware of, but I think this perspective can still add value to the whole conversation.
Mourning media
@doggel I'm sorry, but most of this is blind market solutionism, which is just not borne out by evidence. The solutions arrived at by market forces drive revenue, which we've been hoodwinked into thinking is synonymous with societal good.
In this era, with the least regulated markets since the Gilded Age, are you comfortable claiming we've got society's problems locked down, or that solutions are just one innovation away?
Furthermore, I don't know where you find foundation for the claim that Clarkesworld suddenly experienced an increase in "demand," whatever that means in this case. There was no spike in demand for the magazine, and there wasn't a massive spike in people who wanted to write sci-fi; there was a massive decrease in the barrier to submission. In a way, this subverts supply/demand by removing labor from the equation.
As to the value of truth, I don't see how you can look at the current media ecosystem and claim "truth has value." Truthiness, maybe, but that's a far cry. No, we are already losing the war for truth, but LLMs represent the nuclear option in that conflict, for all the reasons I've laid out.
Perhaps you think that a flood of synthetic language with questionable truth value will trigger an increase in critical thinking, but that's like saying laying minefields will result in greater agility. I'd rather not contend with the original risk.
The only "advantages" to LLMs are for capitalists trying to extract maximum value for minimum effort. While there are limited areas in which language processing like this can be valuable, I maintain that the negatives for society greatly outweigh the positives.
Mourning media
@mttaggart You completely misunderstood everything I said. First, I do prefer today's era of lack of regulation, I know you may not value it, but I'm native south american, regulation has been destroying traditions and communities from a long time now, and before that we were even property, as certain government regulations went away, my people have been able to actually live more according to our culture while still participating in society. Second, (part 1)
Mourning media
@mttaggart I said that Clarkesworld had a demand for some help, not that he received more demand of publications from the readers. That's how starts, some people start with the need of filtering out the bs and after a long time pases, a whole economy is built around it, and I did mention that it would be a long painful process but I think slowing things down will only make said painful process last longer. Third, I never said that people (part 2)
Mourning media
@mttaggart suddenly brcome critical thinkers, I said that we as a society will have to incentivize, teach or whatever is needed to do if the society wants to compete/survive against others that do manage to do it right. Finally, truth has value for oneself and one only, since it is oneself that decides for one's life, that's why media tends to prioritize things other than truth, but now that it is become too obvious, more people HAVE TO value truth (part 3)
Mourning media
@mttaggart out of self preservation and survival. Example, where I live a lot of scammers and robbers have appeared using telephone calls, and because of that there are now private services to flag and detect malicious callers, communities have come together to form plans and countermeasures, people are helping amd collaborating with each other, and all of that is born out of individual self preservation and survival.
Mourning media
@doggel It was never perfect, but I really don't think this an entirely fair comparison. Back in the day, newspapers were funded much more by subscription than advertisement, meaning the quality of the journalism actually drove sales. That shifted over time, but certainly was a different calculus than today.
I also think you're minimizing the dangers of the coming flood of LLM content, but I've written about that extensively: taggart-tech.com/ai-llms/