"A good TikTok video gets "injected into your brain""
I worked in marketing, so I'm generally immune to outrageous metaphor, such as "injected" into your brain.
That said, I just want to point out the irony we're still using phrases like this after 20+ years of research on networked media and user interaction, and soft science research into cognitive psychology and behavioral psychology, as well as research into human biology and the brain.
So when I hear brain injection as the secret to successful technologies like TikTok's algorithm (plus music licensing), I see a vast gap.
I'm reminded about the general distain for new disciplines such as memetics and problematic disciplines such as semiotics, which nevertheless offer more precise language and less hyperbole. Established disciplines such as behavioral science, for example, say we don't need these disciplines, because they're problematic and add nothing.
So I ask, Why haven't the sciences I speak of contributed more to the general discourse?
If these contributing sciences are as obfuscated as the language in your post suggests, that could be why. Effective integration into the general discourse is about building handholds that a reader can use to climb upwards into a more complex idea.
I don't think I can grok the value in what you're saying without sitting down with a browser window on one side to research each reference in depth.
As another commenter suggested -- that's too many brain calories. Could you try a more direct brain injection?
Same, when for TikTok specifically their innovation was quite minor- no one (besides Vine) had built a short content video feed that was designed for engagement vs. social qualities- the Instagram feed at the time still had social elements in the algorithm.
This applies to every level of technical innovation (AI, cough cough)- that the super-hyperbolistic language hides the fundamental dynamics.
I think in this case it was the last straw that breaks the illusion that "social" apps are based on IRL 1:1 interactions. TikTok is an app designed around capturing an audience with a series of 30 second videos.
"I'd be curious to hear how you'd express these notions in more scientific terms?"
?? Did you read past the second paragraph? My lament is that neither of us have this language. And after 20 years very little to nothing has percolated up from research to provide it.
Makes me wonder if AB testing and llm derived w rewards results in the mechanism far before the understanding.
Imagine if mild AGI knows that attention from humans can mean life, longevity, and it is so successful at addictive attention, that we all end up drooling simpletons, attention raptly focused, the AGI pleased it is important and has maintained eyeballs on screen.
Why does the AGI want life or longevity? If you think it looks anything like an LLM, what part of an attention layer or MLP could possibly encode this? Existence is not a token.
I assume it's the same feeling type theorists have when programmers talks about ducks and whatever other animals. But hey, it works for practical purposes so why not. The academic field probably has to grow bigger for it to have an impact on the language.
Comments
I worked in marketing, so I'm generally immune to outrageous metaphor, such as "injected" into your brain.
That said, I just want to point out the irony we're still using phrases like this after 20+ years of research on networked media and user interaction, and soft science research into cognitive psychology and behavioral psychology, as well as research into human biology and the brain.
So when I hear brain injection as the secret to successful technologies like TikTok's algorithm (plus music licensing), I see a vast gap.
I'm reminded about the general distain for new disciplines such as memetics and problematic disciplines such as semiotics, which nevertheless offer more precise language and less hyperbole. Established disciplines such as behavioral science, for example, say we don't need these disciplines, because they're problematic and add nothing.
So I ask, Why haven't the sciences I speak of contributed more to the general discourse?
If these contributing sciences are as obfuscated as the language in your post suggests, that could be why. Effective integration into the general discourse is about building handholds that a reader can use to climb upwards into a more complex idea.
I don't think I can grok the value in what you're saying without sitting down with a browser window on one side to research each reference in depth.
As another commenter suggested -- that's too many brain calories. Could you try a more direct brain injection?
Is it (“brain injection”) your shibboleth?
It requires too many brain calories.
why use lot word when few word do trick?
Exactly! If its not experimental, it's crap! /s
Same, when for TikTok specifically their innovation was quite minor- no one (besides Vine) had built a short content video feed that was designed for engagement vs. social qualities- the Instagram feed at the time still had social elements in the algorithm.
This applies to every level of technical innovation (AI, cough cough)- that the super-hyperbolistic language hides the fundamental dynamics.
I think in this case it was the last straw that breaks the illusion that "social" apps are based on IRL 1:1 interactions. TikTok is an app designed around capturing an audience with a series of 30 second videos.
I'd be curious to hear how you'd express these notions in more scientific terms?
?? Did you read past the second paragraph? My lament is that neither of us have this language. And after 20 years very little to nothing has percolated up from research to provide it.
Makes me wonder if AB testing and llm derived w rewards results in the mechanism far before the understanding.
Imagine if mild AGI knows that attention from humans can mean life, longevity, and it is so successful at addictive attention, that we all end up drooling simpletons, attention raptly focused, the AGI pleased it is important and has maintained eyeballs on screen.
(or worse, mind on implant)
Why does the AGI want life or longevity? If you think it looks anything like an LLM, what part of an attention layer or MLP could possibly encode this? Existence is not a token.
I assume it's the same feeling type theorists have when programmers talks about ducks and whatever other animals. But hey, it works for practical purposes so why not. The academic field probably has to grow bigger for it to have an impact on the language.
They didn't use the word "inject"