thread for thinkpieces about TEH BIG BAD ALGORITHMS! ALGORITHMS! that don't seem to understand what an algorithm is

also the plant looks a *slight bit* tilted? from left to right? like it seems to tilt more than the bass drum
it's a very claustrophobic mise en scene

yeah ... the plant is really troubling ... maybe it was photoshopped in, but in place of some other object? also the tree branch that seems to be tapping at the window at various times? though we can't hear it in the recording, even though it is ostensibly being recorded through the zoom recorder on the tripod, which would presumably pick up some of that sound? though, maybe not?

and what are the drums resting on? it looks like it's some white pedestal or ... like they are just sitting in mid-air? is it just me, or does it kinda look like the snare/tom stack is just floating there?

really wish I knew who ran this account

Looking for non-algorithmic pop smashes!! https://t.co/SOm0DQqeSQ

— ShittyAandRguy (@shittyAandRguy) December 28, 2019

an otherwise ok aggregation post of a twitter workaround with an unfortunate title: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/7kz9ez/go-into-2020-by-taking-your-twitter-feed-back-from-the-algorithm

Here's the heart of it:

By adding a few strings—little bits of code used by Twitter to tag types of tweets—to your muted keywords list, you can change the way the Twitter algorithm sends content to your feed.

While logged in to Twitter, go to Settings > Notifications > Muted > Muted words, and add the strings below.

•suggest_activity_tweet: Stops the platform from feeding you tweets you might like

•suggest_recycled_tweet_inline: Stops repeated tweets from appearing over and over

•suggest_pyle_tweet: Stops serving tweets because mutuals engaged with them

•suggest_grouped_tweet_hashtag: Stops tweets associated with popular hashtags from appearing randomly in your timeline

•suggest_who_to_follow: Self-explanatory

•generic-activity-momentsbreaking: Keep tweets served simply because they're part of a Moment out of your feed

right, take your feed back from the algorithm by... adding additional parameters to the algorithm

from this spotty essay on big thief: https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/listening-in-an-emergency

The task of finding new music presents its own difficulties. If the trouble with YouTube is that it serves up progressively more extreme ideological content, Spotify has precisely the opposite problem, where any song, no matter how brilliant, quickly leads to a chain of forgettable copies that degrade the first song in retrospect.

a) so how, exactly, does this differ from YouTube? because the last time I checked YouTube had a music recommendation algorithm too (although half the time it just sends you to "Plastic Love"). or for that matter, how does this differ from the one on SoundCloud, or Bandcamp, or Amazon, or Last.fm, or literally every other music site that has a similarity feature?

b) 1,000 landfill indie copies exist of virtually every band in existence, because that's how influence works, and the only difference between a playlist and a used-record bin is that the used-record bin probably gave people an advance; in fact one could argue this is what brilliance is, the inability to fade into the background

c) and if Big Thief (the subject of the essay) is indeed brilliant, then why don't they get degraded by the 1,000 Big Thief copies that exist?

d) how exactly does this have anything to do with the rest of the essay

https://slate.com/technology/2020/07/college-admissions-algorithms-applications.html

"will colleges start using THE ALGORITHMS in admissions decisions?" unfortunately I have some bad news for the author about the current process that college admission boards use

college board website: "Large, public state university systems often use a mathematical formula based on a student's grade point average (GPA) and scores on the SAT or ACT. They tend to favor in-state applicants."

if there's some explanation for how this is not an algorithm, the author hasn't mentioned it

the algorithms haven't had a great week in the UK

https://www.wired.com/story/an-algorithm-determined-uk-students-grades-chaos-ensued/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2020/08/13/algorithm-has-ruined-a-level-results-thousands-students/
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/education/a-level-exam-grades-faulty-algorithm-a4526646.html

Q: Who is to blame for the government's mishandling of a situation everyone saw coming six months ago?
A: The algorithms!

FWIW I think this scandal is a bit different as most people seem to correctly recognise that the algorithm is being used as a clumsy shield by the unforgivable people who are actually in charge of this shitstorm.

I'm going to lose my fucking mind:

Algorithms, by contrast, change as human behavior changes. They resemble not the cars or coal mines we have regulated in the past, but something more like the bacteria in our intestines, living organisms that interact with us. In one experiment, for example, Matias observed that when users on Reddit worked together to promote news from reliable sources, the Reddit algorithm itself began to prioritize higher-quality content.

this is the equivalent of saying "when people started adding 2+4 instead of 2+2, the algorithm produced 6 instead of 4! It's changing!" (or, in this case: "when people started to promote more high-quality content, the prioritize-stuff-people-promote algorithm started to prioritize more high-quality content! It's changing!")

i think my brain needs a new algorithm

Recipes, by contrast, change as human behavior changes. The recipe called for chicken so the first time I made it, I used a can of dog food. The second time I used fresh chicken, resulting in higher-quality food.

now uk government policy

The minister in charge of the new law regulating behaviour online has told social media bosses to “remove your harmful algorithms today” - or face swift criminal prosecution https://t.co/BkxI3Hwcr8

— Sky News (@SkyNews) November 4, 2021

Is that Secretary Aimless? ;)

She said of the social media companies: "They know what they're doing wrong."

Her junior minister, Chris Philp, added: "The platforms have no regard or scant regard for protecting people… it is completely unacceptable and irresponsible."

Ms Dorries, who was unexpectedly promoted to culture secretary by Boris Johnson in last month's reshuffle, also confirmed that the bill would use an expansive definition of online harm, up to and including "psychological harm" caused by abuse.

The government has found the exact nature of "online harm" difficult to pin down and critics - including tech company lobbyists - argue that it has still not been properly defined in the legislation.

The government is being urged to use its upcoming Online Safety Bill to give police and prosecutors more powers.

Ms Dorries said she believed the definition was "quite clear", saying: "If it causes physical or psychological injury then, of course, it wouldn't be allowed."

However, she said that the concept of "societal harm", which some have called on to be included in the bill, was "too complex" to put into law.

my god

Omg they're doing it out in the open!!

https://www.algoriddim.com/

https://www.theverge.com/2021/11/10/22775580/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-judge-apple-ai-pinch-to-zoom-footage-manipulation-claim

What the fucking fuck. Fuck this judge.

judge is 75. judge doesn't do email

“iPads, which are made by Apple, have artificial intelligence in them that allow things to be viewed through three-dimensions and logarithms,” the defense insisted. “It uses artificial intelligence, or their logarithms, to create what they believe is happening. So this isn’t actually enhanced video, this is Apple’s iPad programming creating what it thinks is there, not what necessarily is there,” they added.

...Judge Schroeder argued that it was the prosecution — not the defense — that had the burden of proving that Apple doesn’t use artificial intelligence to manipulate footage, demanding that they provide an expert to testify, and didn’t allow the prosecution to adjourn to find that expert before bringing Rittenhouse up for cross-examination. The judge suggested that prosecutors could somehow find that expert in 20 minutes while they took a brief recess. “Maybe you can get someone to testify on this within minutes, I don’t know,” said the judge. No such expert was there by the time the trial resumed.

someone, find an expert on logarithms!!

i think i could be a pioneering lawyer, now that i know this kind of stuff works!

your honor, i'm afraid that all of the video and audio exhibits presented by the prosecution must be thrown out. you see, they don't want you to know all of the video and audio has been manipulated. it is not the original sound and images that a witness would have perceived in real life. these sounds and images were captured by a device - an iPhone, made by a company called Apple - and then stored on their digital platform. in the process, apple uses proprietary "logarithms" to convert these files for storage.

Judge Larry Fontaine: I am so sick of these companies and their logarithms trying to fool us. Prosecution, unless you can produce a logarithm expert while I go take a 20-minute three-flusher, I will be forced to throw out all evidence in this trial. Now if you'll excuse me, I have a crossword to do

Why does the YouTube Music algorithim think I want to hear "Take My Breathe Away" every goddam day

if they mean The Knife single then because it's a great single