Regarding the overabundance of information, we should note that a lot of monitoring will be aided by a lot of automated processes.
The internet’s tendency to overconsume attention… I think that might be a temporary phase, don’t you? We are all gorging ourselves on candy. We all know how stupid and hollow it is and soon we will all be sick, and maybe we’ll be conditioned well enough by that sick feeling to stop doing it.
Personally, I’ve been thinking a lot lately about how lesswrong is the only place where people try to write content that will be read thoroughly by a lot of people over a long period of time. I don’t think we’re doing well, at that, but I think the value of a place like this is obvious to a lot of people. We will learn to focus on developing the structures of information that last for a long time, or at least, the people who matter will learn.
I don’t think LessWrong is unique in that regard. Wikipedia is strongly focused on it. The StackExchange network also has a lot of content that’s intended to be available in the future.
Also podcasts and video. Most of the population is not as literate as we are, but they can still digest audio. There are lots of video lectures on YouTube.
My point wasn’t that internet advertising in particular would be the cause of our inattention, but that humans have real limitations when it comes to processing information, with that being one salient example. We evolved in small bands of maybe fifty individuals. Our instincts cannot handle interactions in larger groups correctly. We have compensated to a remarkable degree via learned culture, but with some obvious shortcomings. More information would only amplify these problems.
I agree automation has a role to play in information processing, but that can amplify distortions on its own. Personalized search or divisive filter bubbles? Racist algorithms. Etc.
Regarding the overabundance of information, we should note that a lot of monitoring will be aided by a lot of automated processes.
The internet’s tendency to overconsume attention… I think that might be a temporary phase, don’t you? We are all gorging ourselves on candy. We all know how stupid and hollow it is and soon we will all be sick, and maybe we’ll be conditioned well enough by that sick feeling to stop doing it.
Personally, I’ve been thinking a lot lately about how lesswrong is the only place where people try to write content that will be read thoroughly by a lot of people over a long period of time. I don’t think we’re doing well, at that, but I think the value of a place like this is obvious to a lot of people. We will learn to focus on developing the structures of information that last for a long time, or at least, the people who matter will learn.
I don’t think LessWrong is unique in that regard. Wikipedia is strongly focused on it. The StackExchange network also has a lot of content that’s intended to be available in the future.
Also podcasts and video. Most of the population is not as literate as we are, but they can still digest audio. There are lots of video lectures on YouTube.
My point wasn’t that internet advertising in particular would be the cause of our inattention, but that humans have real limitations when it comes to processing information, with that being one salient example. We evolved in small bands of maybe fifty individuals. Our instincts cannot handle interactions in larger groups correctly. We have compensated to a remarkable degree via learned culture, but with some obvious shortcomings. More information would only amplify these problems.
I agree automation has a role to play in information processing, but that can amplify distortions on its own. Personalized search or divisive filter bubbles? Racist algorithms. Etc.