I think it’s very good to have people around who are saying “cut back on social media”, “get off social media”, as a counter to its addictive power.
And yet… If I take the title literally, I am being told that I should quit social media entirely, as soon as possible, because in the near future, it will be so addictive that I will be literally unable to quit.
When you first raised this idea, I asked what will happen to people who don’t get out in time? In this post, we now have a concrete scenario. The protagonist doesn’t die. They don’t go mad. They don’t become anyone’s minion. They just… spend a lot of time irritated, spend all day watching videos, and lose touch with some real people.
Well, that’s nobody’s ideal, but it’s not actually worse than the human condition has been, for large numbers of people throughout history. “Lives of quiet desperation” I think have been pretty common in the agricultural and industrial eras. In terms of historical experience, it is actually normal for people to end up limping through life with some affliction that they never quite get over, whether it’s injury, trauma, some familial or national destiny that they just can’t escape… To learn that, in the information age, some people become unwholesome computer or media addicts, is just to write the next chapter of that.
Let me be clear, I’m not quite urging apathy about social media addiction. It’s just that I was expecting something more apocalyptic as the payoff, that humanity would be utter captives of the content farms, perhaps later to be herded into Matrix pods or assembled into armies of meme-controlled zombies. Instead, what you’re describing is more like a chronic misery specific to the information age.
It’s like someone warning that if you abandon hunting and gathering, you’ll end up standing around all day watching farm animals, or if you leave the farm for the big industrial city, you’ll end up stooped and maimed by factory work. All that actually happened, but there were also huge upsides to the new order in each case.
After all, there’s actually a lot of good stuff that comes through social media. With a keyword search, I can find up-to-the-second information and perspectives, on something that is happening, including censored perspectives. I can follow the news about topics that interest only a very niche audience. I can eavesdrop on, and even participate in, all kinds of discussions that would otherwise be out of my reach. I can track down lost friends, find work, simply indulge my curiosity.
Of course there are formidable downsides too. You can overindulge (I have a weakness for reaction videos), you can burn out certain faculties, you can forget your own life amidst a million distractions, and just as in real life, there are far worse things lying in wait: scammers, grifters, toxic personalities and communities, political botnets; and perhaps there are even architects of addiction who deserve death as much as any fentanyl dealer does.
It’s just that you haven’t really made the case, that the social Internet will become nothing but a prison of blighted lives. Life in that space is much more like living in a city. There are risks and evils specific to urban life, and city dwellers must learn to avoid them, and lots of people fall prey to them. But there are also good things that can only happen in cities, and there are new good things that only happen online.
I haven’t mentioned the AI factor so far, but it is central to your scenario. My response again is that there are positives and negatives, and in some cases it may not even be clear which is which, The combination of AI and social media may lead to new symbioses that look horrifying to outsiders, but which have a merit and integrity of their own. As AI becomes more and more capable, the question of AI on social media just blends into the broader question of humanity’s destiny in a world with AI, and ultimately, a world with artificial superintelligence.
Thank you for your comment, and your original on the Thesis. I decided not to include the latter in this post, as you’ve already pointed out the scenario itself is a response.
And yet… If I take the title literally, I am being told that I should quit social media entirely, as soon as possible, because in the near future, it will be so addictive that I will be literally unable to quit.
I would like to confirm I mean the title literally. I don’t go into it enough in the post or supplement. But as of now, this is the best strategy I can think of to avoid something I don’t want to happen to me. I have started downloading whole YouTube Channels, and setting up ways to auto download content from creators I enjoy. I am trying to take this very seriously.
Well, that’s nobody’s ideal, but it’s not actually worse than the human condition has been, for large numbers of people throughout history.
I think that this is true. But it can be true that the human condition has been bad through most of history, and it can be true that aiming to make the human condition better is virtuous, and worth doing.
In my ideal world, not a single person is “limping through life”. But if 90% of people are currently limping through life, and Omega offered me the choice between reducing the amount of limpers by 1%, or leaving it where it is (because I’d prefer my ideal world, over just −1%) then I’d take the 1% reduction!
It’s just that I was expecting something more apocalyptic as the payoff, that humanity would be utter captives of the content farms, perhaps later to be herded into Matrix pods or assembled into armies of meme-controlled zombies.
Yeah, I think Miro’s story ends early. This is on purpose. I think this is a likely outcome for a large % of self supporting wealthy individuals (By wealthy and self supporting, I mean something like “I pay my own rent by working, though, I still live pay check-to-pay check”).
The epilogue for Miro might look like one of the things you described. It would require social media companies to win some sort of battle for ultimate power? Or perhaps they fight for some amount of ‘territory’ and win. If this did happen, I’d guess it’d look a little like the social media version of Disneyland without Children.
After all, there’s actually a lot of good stuff that comes through social media.
I hard agree with everything you say here. I actually think there are many more things you’re leaving out. I think social media up-to a certain point was net-good for the world. It certainly accelerated us culturally.
My sister was beaten in high school for being gay. That was in the 2010s. When I teach kids these days, I sometimes have to remind the queer kids that it’s actually ok to be straight. I don’t think we would have had a drastic transformation like that without the social internet.
It’s just that you haven’t really made the case, that the social Internet will become nothing but a prison of blighted lives.
I’m not totally sure what you mean here. I’ll try to respond in the direction I think you were meaning.
Mainly, I think Social Media has provided great value. However, I now see a trajectory it seems hard to disentangle ourselves from. One where my preference for having free time to write LessWrong posts, see friends, and fall in love, are threatened by an activity I consider less meaningful to my life. An activity that I think will cause me more pain than pleasure.
If living in the city meant I was alone, in a job I didn’t enjoy, with a body I was neglecting. But I got to enjoy the conveniences of a city, like food delivery, higher possibility of making friends in the future, higher density of Tinder profiles. Then I would choose not to live in the city. Those benefits are not worth the cost to me.
As AI becomes more and more capable, the question of AI on social media just blends into the broader question of humanity’s destiny in a world with AI, and ultimately, a world with artificial superintelligence.
Yes, I think as we move towards ASI the future becomes less certain. This is why I’d really like to emphasise that what I have proposed doesn’t need ASI. A lot of this scenario doesn’t require AGI. That is why I think GTFO now is the best plan. Even if we manage to align an ASI, it wont be around to save us when this becomes a problem.
I especially want to spread this meme through the alignment community. As I think having many people very focused on this problem is our best chance of solving it. I would dislike if those people fell into the same traps as Miro.
I really appreciate your thoughtful comment here, and the time you took to write it. Strong upvote for your virtue of argument. Thank you!
I think it’s very good to have people around who are saying “cut back on social media”, “get off social media”, as a counter to its addictive power.
And yet… If I take the title literally, I am being told that I should quit social media entirely, as soon as possible, because in the near future, it will be so addictive that I will be literally unable to quit.
When you first raised this idea, I asked what will happen to people who don’t get out in time? In this post, we now have a concrete scenario. The protagonist doesn’t die. They don’t go mad. They don’t become anyone’s minion. They just… spend a lot of time irritated, spend all day watching videos, and lose touch with some real people.
Well, that’s nobody’s ideal, but it’s not actually worse than the human condition has been, for large numbers of people throughout history. “Lives of quiet desperation” I think have been pretty common in the agricultural and industrial eras. In terms of historical experience, it is actually normal for people to end up limping through life with some affliction that they never quite get over, whether it’s injury, trauma, some familial or national destiny that they just can’t escape… To learn that, in the information age, some people become unwholesome computer or media addicts, is just to write the next chapter of that.
Let me be clear, I’m not quite urging apathy about social media addiction. It’s just that I was expecting something more apocalyptic as the payoff, that humanity would be utter captives of the content farms, perhaps later to be herded into Matrix pods or assembled into armies of meme-controlled zombies. Instead, what you’re describing is more like a chronic misery specific to the information age.
It’s like someone warning that if you abandon hunting and gathering, you’ll end up standing around all day watching farm animals, or if you leave the farm for the big industrial city, you’ll end up stooped and maimed by factory work. All that actually happened, but there were also huge upsides to the new order in each case.
After all, there’s actually a lot of good stuff that comes through social media. With a keyword search, I can find up-to-the-second information and perspectives, on something that is happening, including censored perspectives. I can follow the news about topics that interest only a very niche audience. I can eavesdrop on, and even participate in, all kinds of discussions that would otherwise be out of my reach. I can track down lost friends, find work, simply indulge my curiosity.
Of course there are formidable downsides too. You can overindulge (I have a weakness for reaction videos), you can burn out certain faculties, you can forget your own life amidst a million distractions, and just as in real life, there are far worse things lying in wait: scammers, grifters, toxic personalities and communities, political botnets; and perhaps there are even architects of addiction who deserve death as much as any fentanyl dealer does.
It’s just that you haven’t really made the case, that the social Internet will become nothing but a prison of blighted lives. Life in that space is much more like living in a city. There are risks and evils specific to urban life, and city dwellers must learn to avoid them, and lots of people fall prey to them. But there are also good things that can only happen in cities, and there are new good things that only happen online.
I haven’t mentioned the AI factor so far, but it is central to your scenario. My response again is that there are positives and negatives, and in some cases it may not even be clear which is which, The combination of AI and social media may lead to new symbioses that look horrifying to outsiders, but which have a merit and integrity of their own. As AI becomes more and more capable, the question of AI on social media just blends into the broader question of humanity’s destiny in a world with AI, and ultimately, a world with artificial superintelligence.
Thank you for your comment, and your original on the Thesis. I decided not to include the latter in this post, as you’ve already pointed out the scenario itself is a response.
I would like to confirm I mean the title literally. I don’t go into it enough in the post or supplement. But as of now, this is the best strategy I can think of to avoid something I don’t want to happen to me. I have started downloading whole YouTube Channels, and setting up ways to auto download content from creators I enjoy. I am trying to take this very seriously.
I think that this is true. But it can be true that the human condition has been bad through most of history, and it can be true that aiming to make the human condition better is virtuous, and worth doing.
In my ideal world, not a single person is “limping through life”. But if 90% of people are currently limping through life, and Omega offered me the choice between reducing the amount of limpers by 1%, or leaving it where it is (because I’d prefer my ideal world, over just −1%) then I’d take the 1% reduction!
Yeah, I think Miro’s story ends early. This is on purpose. I think this is a likely outcome for a large % of self supporting wealthy individuals (By wealthy and self supporting, I mean something like “I pay my own rent by working, though, I still live pay check-to-pay check”).
The epilogue for Miro might look like one of the things you described. It would require social media companies to win some sort of battle for ultimate power? Or perhaps they fight for some amount of ‘territory’ and win. If this did happen, I’d guess it’d look a little like the social media version of Disneyland without Children.
I hard agree with everything you say here. I actually think there are many more things you’re leaving out. I think social media up-to a certain point was net-good for the world. It certainly accelerated us culturally.
My sister was beaten in high school for being gay. That was in the 2010s. When I teach kids these days, I sometimes have to remind the queer kids that it’s actually ok to be straight. I don’t think we would have had a drastic transformation like that without the social internet.
I’m not totally sure what you mean here. I’ll try to respond in the direction I think you were meaning.
Mainly, I think Social Media has provided great value. However, I now see a trajectory it seems hard to disentangle ourselves from. One where my preference for having free time to write LessWrong posts, see friends, and fall in love, are threatened by an activity I consider less meaningful to my life. An activity that I think will cause me more pain than pleasure.
If living in the city meant I was alone, in a job I didn’t enjoy, with a body I was neglecting. But I got to enjoy the conveniences of a city, like food delivery, higher possibility of making friends in the future, higher density of Tinder profiles. Then I would choose not to live in the city. Those benefits are not worth the cost to me.
Yes, I think as we move towards ASI the future becomes less certain. This is why I’d really like to emphasise that what I have proposed doesn’t need ASI. A lot of this scenario doesn’t require AGI. That is why I think GTFO now is the best plan. Even if we manage to align an ASI, it wont be around to save us when this becomes a problem.
I especially want to spread this meme through the alignment community. As I think having many people very focused on this problem is our best chance of solving it. I would dislike if those people fell into the same traps as Miro.
I really appreciate your thoughtful comment here, and the time you took to write it. Strong upvote for your virtue of argument. Thank you!