Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror

Comment Local Man Abandons Honest Living (Score 4, Insightful) 92

by Iamthecheese (#66095618) Attached to: Cal.com Is Going Closed Source Because of AI
A local warehouse clerk announced Tuesday that he intends to start mugging strangers because of recent developments in artificial intelligence security. Derek "Deke" Hargrove, 34, told reporters that powerful AI systems can now analyze any publicly available information about a person and turn it into a perfect plan for exploitation. "Any data you put out there -- your routines, your photos, your habits -- it is all open-source to these AI models now," Hargrove said outside a Loop coffee shop, with a ski mask visible in his back pocket. "They can study it and build a complete blueprint to rob or target you. Living a normal digital life just is not safe anymore."

Hargrove added that conventional security measures have become ineffective. "The only truly secure option left is to go fully analog," he said. "No digital trail, no logs, no AI predicting my every move. Just me, a dark street, and whoever walks by with cash in their pocket." He said he intends to launch his new career tomorrow night.

Comment Re:The latest excuse (Score 1) 43

by Iamthecheese (#66095558) Attached to: Snapchat Blames AI As It Cuts 1,000 Jobs
It's kind of silly. There's an absolute limit to the amount of productivity that can be had at a given price point. Demand more work and your best leave. Pay less and they leave and also you can't recruit. Same with cutting benefits and so on. In a recession like the one we're in you can squeeze a little more but that's still going to bite you in the ass later.

Comment Movies (Score 0, Flamebait) 152

They have a cut per second, unrelatable characters, clashes between acting and directing, lectures about how my sex and race are evil, terrible fight scenes where blows never land, poorly mixed audio, hundred pound women punching out 200 pound men, and very little originality. If the studios would make decent movies, there would be enough seats filled.

Comment Re:Let me guess: new standard? (Score 2) 27

Google learned to embrace, extend and extinguish right out of Microsoft's playbook. They were excellent students and you can see the results in how email and web "standards" work today.

The difference is that when Microsoft did it the authorities eventually started getting in their way to promote more openness and competition again. So far there is little sign that anyone intends to challenge the way a few tech giants have recently been capturing long-established standards that we rely on for what have become vital services and effectively taking ownership for their own purposes. The governments and their regulators are either asleep at the wheel or, if you're a bit less trusting, bought and paid for.

Submission + - The Readability Threshold

Submitted by Iamthecheese
Iamthecheese writes: Online Debate Has a Capacity Limit

This is formatted by an LLM. I've reviewed it, and I ask the reader to suppress his cringe at LLMisms like "the takeaway" because they do not detract from the usefulness of the piece.

Most people have seen this in online arguments: someone is wrong, and it could — in principle — be proven. But the proof would require so many definitions, caveats, steps, evidence, and background details that almost no one would read it all.

Further effort then hits diminishing returns, creating an information bottleneck that caps the conversation’s usefulness.

People often complain that online discourse rewards short, punchy claims over nuanced ones. That is true, but not the root issue. The deeper problem is that many topics demand a minimum level of detail to explain correctly, while online platforms and audiences impose a strict maximum on what they will absorb.

When required detail exceeds what the medium can carry, more effort no longer produces more understanding. The discussion can stay active and heated, but it stops doing the job it pretends to do.

A Simple Model

Define:
— d: detail required for a correct explanation
— l: detail actually delivered
— T: maximum detail the audience will process

Useful explanations must satisfy both l >= d and l
Thus, productive discourse requires d
Model audience tolerance as:
T = s × (i / d)

where:
— i: perceived importance of the topic
— s: scaling factor for platform and audience attention capacity

Substituting yields:
d2 s × i

Usefulness and Diminishing Returns

Define usefulness U as the fraction of required understanding successfully transmitted:
U = min(1, T / d) = min(1, (s × i) / d2)

This creates both a hard upper bound on usefulness and strong diminishing returns on effort. Early contributions can meaningfully improve understanding, but once delivered detail hits the audience limit T, additional effort delivers no further gain.

The constraint is not about intelligence or intellectual honesty — it is fundamentally a bandwidth limit.

What Happens Past the Limit

When d > T, participants are left with three poor options:
— Compress the argument and lose critical nuance
— Deliver the full explanation and lose most of the audience
— Disengage

All reduce the conversation’s value without solving the underlying capacity problem.

This explains why long, careful online explanations frequently fail to change minds — not because they are unconvincing, but because the extra detail does not survive transmission.

Why This Matters

The model shows that topics combining high importance (raising i) with high irreducible complexity (large d) are most likely to defeat online discourse. Attention grows only linearly with importance, while complexity penalizes quadratically.

Discourse does not collapse; it simplifies. Distinctions vanish, multi-step logic turns into slogans, and unstated assumptions proliferate. The conversation remains engaging but its usefulness is capped far below what the subject demands.

In this light, misinformation often stems less from deliberate falsehoods than from channel capacity too narrow to carry accurate understanding intact.

The Takeaway

The core problem with online debate is not merely a preference for brevity. Beyond a certain point, longer and more accurate arguments stop delivering proportional gains in shared understanding.

Once required detail exceeds what the medium can sustain, conversation usefulness is fundamentally bounded. Extra effort cannot overcome the limit.

Compactly:
Useful discourse requires: d2 s × i

Maximum usefulness: U = min(1, (s × i) / d2)

Everything else is commentary.

Linking to Social Response to Real Problems

This capacity model supplies a concrete diagnostic for societal responses to complex real-world issues such as climate change, pandemics, or economic inequality.

For any given problem, one can estimate d (its irreducible complexity), i (public attention via search trends or media volume), and s (platform bandwidth). The resulting discourse efficiency index (s × i) / d2 (identical to U when below 1) becomes a useful quantitative measure of social response potential.

When the index falls significantly below 1, expect strong emotional mobilisation paired with weak, symbolic, or counterproductive policy action; public debate that feels intense yet fails to converge on accurate solutions; and simplification of the issue into slogans and tribal signals rather than actionable understanding.

The index therefore flags problems likely to elicit performative rather than substantive collective responses.

Comment Forget gambling (Score 1) 83

Let's take a big step back. Before anyone has a say in what's done there, let's stop the abuse of the interstate commerce clause. Local jurisdiction is local, and the excuse that down the road money will change hands in an unrelated transaction because of this one is the worst abuse of the constitution out there.

Slashdot Top Deals

"In my opinion, Richard Stallman wouldn't recognise terrorism if it came up and bit him on his Internet." -- Ross M. Greenberg

Close