Kyle Chayka -”Filterworld” & Experiencing the World Through Algorithms | The Daily Show 

Absolutely! I’m mostly here for Jordan and Ronnie.

I thought it’d be awkward but it actually works. It feels more off-the-cuff than a more traditional tv show interview

that's gonna Kosta

they're the opposite of the movie Dumb and Dumber. Smart and Smarter.

💯

Right? Parody has always been the way.

or the boring middle class rich

1812 and the influence of Beau Brummell on men's fashions. (And more importantly, his influence toward frequent bathing and dental hygiene.)

That's mostly the colors that were available. Even yarn!

I never thought of it that way. Thanks for the new neural netway

The "News Pals"! 😂

No, they are a farse of what the show was.

i was just thinking the same thing. They are like Bonnie & Clyde

@@GrowHealthyTropicalTrees that's a horrible team!

@@GrowHealthyTropicalTrees murdering criminals?

you don't write well

I think the problem is that algorithms are exploiting this to remove it. For example, algorithms spread content that makes people angry because it garners engagement, not because it wants go make us angry. And the engagement is definitely HUMAN driven, not AI. But we wouldnt be engaging in angering content if it werent for the algorithm.

@@distractionb They're also wrong. I grew up in a small city with 6 coffee shops in the downtown area. All of them were wildly different, and which one you frequented said a lot about you. People who chose the Second Cup were viewed as conformist. Why would you go to sterile cookie-cutter coffee shop when it was two doors down from Serafina's, which was not only an ethical coffee house, but also sold witchcraft books and was decorated like a kaleidoscope? You don't create community by being like everyone else, you create brittleness and resentment. No one likes being told how to think.

That's not a human desire to conform to an aesthetic standard, that's just companies minimizing risk by following a proven sales strategy. And your point doesn't address the larger issue that algorithms are pushing the notion that there is only one correct way to be a doughnut shop and that people like you are falling for it.

@@NickW855 I don't drink coffee or eat doughnuts. Do the shops look like a 1950's diner?

Imma Google that immediately

@@Ivartshiva it's a canon-level hip hop classic

When the mcs came to live out their names

I don't know why I was so surprised to hear Klepper drop that casually into the convo. Of course he knows cool music, but what a great example!

We were making cave paintings when survival was a day-to-day thing.

@@williamgechtman9287 Truly wish I knew your point here

@@mattymc1072 "we cannot be creative/unique when out focus is on survival." We were creating unique art in caves when survival was much more dubious than it is today. That is not to say we do not labor within a system that is unconcerned about personal realization, exploit us for its own profit, and leaves us too busy or tired to think about trying to change it, never mind acting on those thoughts. It is just that survival or no, we have always been creative.

Yeah. This guy isn't adding any new knowledge. He's just written a book on something everyone knows anyway. He's using "the algorithm" to get book sales.

Based on the post it notes the book may be better than the interview.

I'm not sure what the point is here, should the algorithms be more stochastic? That's a dead horse at this point, it's a well known issue. Even still, the algorithms on the platforms I use give me stuff I dislike all the time. Also, culture has never been less flat, at least partly due to these very same algorithms clustering niche communities.

I’m in my 20s and so many people my age will never listen to classic artist like these. Simply because they would not ever be recommend by their algorithm. I’m sure if they were exposed to this music as I was when I was younger because my Dad was a classic rock DJ, they would grow to love it. But without that exposure and the fact that people have the natural instinct to be lazy (Why waste time going to a record store digging through crates of music you might not like, when the algorithm will recommend you music you know will fit your current taste already?), culture continues to be flattened and ultimately boring. There will never be another Aretha because she was too unique of a talent. The only artists that succeed today are the ones that already fit the existing mold of the algorithm. Taylor Swift is generic auto tune but no one in the world has ever sounded like Micheal Jackson.

true that

although we all have dealt with the very human used car salesman in some form or fashion

Time to cancel.

wu tang is for the children. word

That concluding sentence perfectly pins down the root of the issue.

It’s not about generations. In the 50’s there were plenty of families where kids were raised to believe questioning authority is wrong. But there were also families who encouraged critical thinking. I find it ridiculous that people are critical of the generations they helped raise. As if it’s the children’s fault for their struggles and as though every generation doesn’t have struggles. Older generations point to how they overcame their struggles to prove their superiority, ignoring that the kids haven’t have time to figure out how they are going to overcome.

@@GregMerritt-ws8tq what, "Believe me"?

@@LoveProWrestling You already know that's not the line I meant. Stop it.

lol critical thinker? thanks for what? boomers are the Me generation. so what's left?

killa bees on a swarm

Chatbot Teleprompter.

isn't that what happened in the last four elections?

I use the same stuff because it works for me and because I am not a factor in pop culture, the products I rely on are systematically discontinued. now however, as more small companies are seeking to P.E, everyone will be forced into $ht products; and the ignorant will have no problem with that what so ever

Flim Springfield ☢️

You can't quite "turn off" an algorithm. An algorithm is just a description of a logical process that being taken. "Turning it off", means removing its existence entirely. As an example, the process of sorting books on a bookshelf, or even presenting a list of names in a phone book... The only way to turn these off, is to not buy books, or collect a list of names at all. To avoid semantics, though, let's instead redefine "Algorithm" as the method by which a company retains value to its users or monetizes the information that it retrieves/produces. The essence of the problem is that we treat information a certain way in our society in regards to ownership, and we'd need to change that somehow. Plus, if we honor the 1st and care about personal rights, then imposing constraints or detecting monetization/misuse of information/knowledge is practically unenforceable. If we however ignore those rights to privacy/speech/etc, then perhaps what could be done is to require the companies that develop software to support and assist with third party integration into their products. Despite this still not really being enforceable (as software is terribly complex and has a development/maintenance cost), it "could" force algorithmic diversity and allow for micro-competition on all the platforms. However, forcing only "certain" companies to abide by arbitrary rules like this is contrary to free-market capitalism, and would also directly conflict with a company's ability to earn revenue (or provide value to users) if they're required to support alternative processes within their platforms. There's just no __real__ way to motivate investors/developers/maintainers of platforms (or anything really) to be both transparent and altruistic with their processes/algorithms. We should really just be more lenient with what we consider a monopoly, somehow stretch its definition to include information monopolies, require them to publicize how they turn information into revenue, and impose requirements on how that information may be used/improved/monetized. Essentially turning passive worthless things, like privacy policies or public documentation, into contracts that can actually hold up in a court of law and result in a major lawsuit from users when it is violated. This way platforms can actually be held accountable for their "free" services.