Comments on: What do you get when you cross Mark Zuckerberg, a horse, and AI? This

By: sunburned cowgirl

sunburned cowgirl — Fri, 20 Sep 2024 01:13:44 +0000

This was such an enlightening post. I enjoyed all your witty humor when regarding Doctorow’s reading, which I also found to be an extremely biased perspective on Facebook. Not that I am a diehard Facebook lover, but it felt like beating a dead horse. Speaking of horses, I loved that you mentioned the horse that finessed a community of scholars and people alike. The story of Clever Hans in the reading was so random???, but also a great point was made, that intelligence is a lot harder to define. For me, I thought about how for a horse Clever Hans was a prodigy and extremely intelligence, but in regard to the human brain it’s… mediocre at best, which I feel diminishes how clever Clever Hans truly is. I think for a horse to learn all that it still means the horse is intelligent, but I felt the article made it seem as though Clever Hans was like every other horse, which to me threw me off. Anyways, I am on a rant now, so I will conclude this by restating how much I enjoyed your post. You were witty, yet informational. Overall, great post, and I can’t wait to read more from you!

By: C6H6 - Benzene

C6H6 - Benzene — Fri, 20 Sep 2024 00:59:27 +0000

Oh my goodness, this was funny. I love how you used comedy to introduce something so idiotic, over the course of years, it has felt in a way, hysterical. I really liked your viewpoint on the facebook bash as something more of a bias outrage, presenting why it is awful, and stepping away from how computers are and will continue to be interoperable.
I think your viewpoint on content, describing in the context of its usage within internet as meaningless, and used by everyone and can be anything. I think that is such a valid point, especially since it can be justified as a very vague word to begin with.

By: jenjam02

jenjam02 — Wed, 18 Sep 2024 03:25:12 +0000

I love your intros into each topic. It immediately grabs you and pulls you in, along with being hilarious. Definitely my favorite part about your post.
Doctorow was really biased and while the information she was giving was interesting and full of facts to back her up, it still just felt like her just getting her anger out about Facebook, like one big rant. I think, in a way, it is essential to consider why Facebook’s practices are a focal point in discussions about technology today. People need to learn about Facebook’s mistakes and not to do what they did.
The horse Han’s example at the beginning really opens our eyes. It highlights how our understanding of intelligence can be skewed by our interpretations and the context in which we evaluate it, especially when it comes to AI.
There’s so much content today on the internet, it’s hard to think of all of it defined by one simple word, even if that word’s definition is straightforward. Especially when it comes to ‘content creators.’ Like you said there are “Painters, authors, musicians” but now “Advertisers, influencers, and others are suddenly added to the pool.” The content industry just seems to keep expanding.

By: swanXVI

swanXVI — Sat, 14 Sep 2024 02:44:07 +0000

I really want you to know that your post made me laugh more than a few times.

Doctorow’s reading and following discussion really did fold into one thing, which folded into another thing, and so on. I can comfortably admit that I didn’t follow at all times, but I still think the discussion was engaging.

Eichorn really made me think about how I define content as meaningless most of the time. It’s hard to think of the word without immediately thinking of clickbait YouTube videos for children (Don’t Drink The Among Us Potion at 3AM!) or silly TikTok skits. Despite my own jaded nature, content is more than that. It’s like a consumable in an RPG, it might bolster my intelligence stat, or my enjoyment stat, or something else, but it should be considered to be a boon.

Li’l Sebastian is a god compared to Hans. Argue with a wall.