It's the same point though. Steam/Itch haven't fallen into the trap, which I think is because the friction and barriers tonentry in video games are less of an issue than other mediums.
But video games in general have fallen into that trap. There were certainly more variety in the mainstream/AAA scene in the 90s and 00s than there is now. No more major publisher really is in that mid tier wacky but interesting 6-7.5/10 game space anymore.
It goes back to the point that consolidation long term ends up being bad and the smaller/indie press is good for culture (and that is a big part of what Steam is, and I'd argue where the most interesting things in gaming have come from lately
It's one of those things where I feel the same thing but at the same time also question whether I'm overreacting to. Sort of in a similar way where there is so much stuff that feels like it's ai written (with little or no attempt to even tweak it from the immediate ai output) out in the real world Internet spaces.
I don't know. It all feels quite unstable in a gaslighty way. All I can really is I suspect the world is not ready for llm advertising and the unintended consequences from the drift to it is going to be wild
Also, one thing not mentioned in the article is that, structurally, some of this is a consequence of a growing sense that we live in a low trust society. I don't necessarily think that is true in the small/local sense for many people, but a lot of the media we consume and talk about highlights that so much of society is untrustworthy and that forces many people to close themselves up as a completely rational way of protecting themselves.
I hope more and more people do not continue to believe that, there is so much good out there in the world and we all have to engage it or we're just letting the low trust side win and life becomes a lot less because of that. Everyone already into chatting for chatting sake now and then, please continue to do so. You're doing a world a huge service. The rest not, come join us, the water feels great!
Low trust is easier to sell for, to try to fill in the hole you might have without enough meaningful social interactions; it's easier to market when you don't have anyone in your close circle to talk you out of spending money unnecessarily. It's easier to manipulate when you don't have enough contacts with others to band together against a common enemy.
The dangers of daily life, while real in some way, have been over-represented in the media, and now we're given the tools to completely avoid them. Whether on purpose or not (bad news sell much better than good news, after all), these are the consequences we're just seeing.
>some of this is a consequence of a growing sense that we live in a low trust society.
Exactly. YMMV but that is 100% true in many urban areas. Too many people leads to less meaningful connections. I imagine much of this community lies in those urban hotspots.
>I hope more and more people do not continue to believe that
it's going to continue. Low trust societies are a structural issue, and I see little initiative to fix it. People constantly need to move around due to rising costs of living, there's no commmunity hubs, third places, frequently meeting clubs, etc. to build such community. Work hours are creeping up while compensation and stability is going down. Where would you find the time to meet up?
It's all an economic issue at the end of the day. There's a part of the equation where we don't "need" to work with as many people anymore to get by. But for he most part, it's very similar to the walk-ability issue in the US. There won't be some mass change all at once, but people take cues and change heir habits around heir environment.
For my environment, I'm a night owl and everything in my town is closed by 8pm or so. I don't like the loud environments of bars. So there's nowhere for me to really go.
I hope you're wrong and I think you're being a little defeatist in the assessment of "Little initiative to fix it". But to each is own. From the communities have stayed in, in different places around the world, I find that is not the case and there is still a high trust society in place locally. It's everywhere else outside that that people tend to view as low trust. I always end up thinking to myself that but there's no true way to actually know that everywhere else is low trust when you're not actually there, they're just fighting shadows.
A very particular case is London, which if you live on the internet you would think is some sort of hellscape where everyone is going to stab you or steal your phone on a bike if you dont run between safe spot to safe spot with eyes on your bike. But I've lived there for many years, still have friends there and visit regularly and that is so far from daily life that it is bizarrely amusing that people think that
I think you're wrong personally. I'm very far away from being "an older British lady" and agree a lot with the article.
Honestly, in the least combative & confrontational possible, your thoughts there are just an excuse to not reach out and engage with the rest of your world. It's a little sad (not you, the situation itself) because if more people had that same thought, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy with no one talking to each other and those people you allude to being an afraid to talk too for whatever reason become the only people out there talking. We're certainly not there yet and I hope we never get there
I agree that it's a sad state of affairs, and a self-fulfilling prophecy. Maybe I can explain my perspective in a little more detail.
In my typical day at work (teacher), I spend hours talking with dozens of people. A large part of why I chose this work was to escape the isolation that I felt previously when I was doing remote software work. I attend weekly religious services and make an effort to stay for the social hour afterwards. When I go to parties, I don't feel like I have an unusually hard time talking with people. I'm not always as engaged with the world as I'd like, but I don't feel that I'm avoiding it either.
But this article isn't broadly about having conversations with new people: it's about approaching strangers in public settings one-on-one (the article mentions a bus stop, the street, and a mostly empty train carriage), where there's no expectation of social interaction. This is a different situation with its own set of pitfalls. Nobody is going to assume that I'm trying to rob them when I introduce myself at Quaker meeting. No one is going to think I'm a creep for asking a student about their hobbies while I'm at school. We don't see articles about people getting shot for starting up a conversation at a party.
But all of that goes out the window in the settings that the author describes. It's funny, the author mentions feeling like it was "rude and unsafe" to start a chat during the pandemic. I felt like talking to strangers in public got much easier during the pandemic, when people were desperate for any sort of in-person conversation. It's the normal times when this sort of interaction feels rude and unsafe.
Maybe I'm too pessimistic, maybe it would be fine for me to let my guard down a little. I think that loneliness is a huge issue these days and I'm grateful for the efforts people are making (including the author of the article) to address it. But approaching strangers in public in the way the author describes is a special case that is *much* more fraught than other types of social interaction, and is a lot harder for certain people to do successfully. I wish it weren't that way, and maybe it's worth pushing back against, but that doesn't change the current reality. Some people might not feel this way, but they're probably the people for whom it's not true.
This was an interesting perspective, thanks for sharing it. Its all very geographical context dependent I suspect and that's where difference in perspective can be quite different.
One thing though is why you see new people as any different than strangers? I'm not a Quaker or ever attended a quaker meeting (but have always liked the ethos of the vibe) so don't know how that goes. But i've spent time in christian churches in my younger days and even though we were all there for the same reason, those people were still also strangers. Some already had their cliques they'd speak to and catch up with and I'm sure if someone outside that spoke to them the same double take that initially occurs talking to any new person or stranger would still occur there. Some people would want to continue chatting, some people would rather just talk to whoever they were talking to before. But its still fundamentally the same thing as talking to (or attempting to talk to and being shutdown by) someone doing the same thing you are currently doing, whether that's being on a train or sitting at a cafe etc.
At church or during social gatherings in a friend's home, there is a certain set of expectations of behavior which are much more well defined and widely understood than the behavior you can expect from random people traveling though the NYC streets or subway.
There are settings where I'm much more likely to engage in conversation with a random stranger than others, because I know it's far less likely that they will react unpredictably and/or try to scam/hurt me.
Again maybe its a geographical thing since I don't live in NYC, but I have visited several times, so i have narrower perception of this. My view and experience is that its far more likely that engaging with a random stranger that they will either politely ignore you, go on their way than react unpredictably and/or try to scam/hurt you. Similarly, its more likely that they will respond to you (even if its a throwaway reply and thats that) than react unpredictably. A society where those two statements aren't true doesnt exist as it would be complete chaos with no interaction between anyone at all
>First, there is no such thing as a [socially] successful person who has never ever creeped anyone out. Give yourself permission to be creepy. I am not saying that you should go around trying to creep people out; of course, if you know something is going to scare someone, you shouldn’t do it; it is best that one avoid becoming Harvey Weinstein. But miscommunications, awkwardness, and misunderstandings happen. Sometimes people make mistakes. You are not going to become Harvey Weinstein by accident. Most people have interacted with someone who has creeped them out at some point, and it does not exactly cause lifelong damage. And while there can be some negative consequences, particularly of creeping people out at work, if you ask [about] a random stranger['s day] at a bookstore or something and they’re creeped out, you know what will happen? Absolutely nothing. The [social] police will not come lock you up for creepiness in the third degree.
Lightly adapted from [1], which is actually the best article online about how to find love and date.
I completely agree with you here, you are being considerate and aware. There are times and places where things are more appropriate and although I do think we can all benefit in lowering our guard and being more brave in having conversations with others. I disagree with the other poster about how every good socially successful person has creeped someone out, I think this is always something we should be considerate about and not just take it as a fact. Conversations involve two people, and we should always be considerate of the other instead of using it transactionally to further our own growth at their expense. I also really dislike the shared source of where their idealogy comes from (alpha male.. yuck). I think you are participating in your community and talking to many people, if you find that you'd like to lower your guard and talk to strangers, I have a strong feeling that what is intuitive to you would be the right thing to do
It's interesting because it's undoubtedly true that bias and prejudice affect one's interactions with the world. At the same time, it's true to that this can contribute to a vicious cycle via self-fulfilling prophecy.
I would say that sometimes you have to make a distinction between truths about the world and beliefs that can be helpful to you personally; sometimes these are in contradiction with each other, so you may find that you have to prefer to fiction to the truth in order to achieve better results.
This seems to be very common and accepted wisdom in the world of sports: a weaker opponent going against a stronger opponent may have virtually no chance of success, but they can marginally improve those chances via "belief."
I'd add also that learning to hear someone tell you no and not taking it to heart and getting on with your life. So many people walk through life being afraid of hearing someone reply "no" to them, like its some existential rejection of them and that stops them from doing many things.
I'll make chit chat with anyone, and people who dont want to chat with are generally pretty explicit about saying they dont want to chat or don't have time, or pretty obviously implicit about it by not engaging or looking for ways out.
Yeah this is the way. You will lightly bother some people by being talkative. But it’s ok. So long as you’re sensitive to their desire not to talk, you’ll be fine. Nobody will murder you in the night or kick you out of the village.
I live in an apartment (condo). I’ve been practicing making small talk with people in the elevator. The conversations aren’t all winners. Lots of people are closed off or don’t want to chat. But no matter. Elevator conversations are disposable. And most people are genuinely lovely. It’s a fun challenge trying to brighten the days of strangers.
Most important line in this article. People will always find an excuse (and i'm including myself in this at times) but that is all it is, an excuse. Talking to people is what makes us human and its innate. You might not be the best conversationalist or whatever but you can still talk to people, no need to put any pressure on it.
> Costco is a really popular subject for business-success case studies but I feel like business guys kinda lose interest when the upshot of the study is like "just operate with scrupulous integrity in all facets and levels of your business for four decades" and not some easy-to-fix gimmick
I don't know, staff at my two Costcos feel much more disinterested and rude then I remember a decade ago. It used to feel fun but now it's miserable.
At peak times they run out of carts and tell the customers to go hunting in the lot for them, door greeters shouting at members across the floor, checkout queues stretch the length of the warehouse, they start half blocking the gas station entrance 30mins before close so trucks can't get in, so maybe they're turning those profit screws.
Ah, right, by being actually good, as in - being okay with mass surveillance as long as it isn't being done in the US, being okay with Claude assisting in killing people as long as it isn't fully autonomous, and being actively hostile to open-weight LLMs and open research on LLMs? This kind of "good"?
No, OP is right, their PR department is doing a great job.
Correct. Protect our citizens' rights, as we are the ones under the jurisdiction of our government. Yes, design competitive weapons systems that can stand up to the threats that adversary powers are creating, but do so while maintaining human control.
Sibling comment summed it up pretty well; my country is considered an ally of yours, but even left leaning Americans seem to take it for granted that we deserve mass AI surveillance/blackmail/manipulation if there’s a chance it could benefit us citizens in the short term. I suppose we deserve it for being complicit in American crimes for so long
You're assuming things I didn't state. I don't particularly want mass AI surveillance at all, but considering how much more dangerous a government's mass spying is to its own citizens living in it 24/7, it's not unreasonable for that to be the focus.
> You're assuming things I didn't state. I don't particularly want mass AI surveillance at all
That's fair, sorry for that.
> considering how much more dangerous a government's mass spying is to its own citizens living in it 24/7, it's not unreasonable for that to be the focus
The US government is actively trying to influence politics in my country and spending huge amounts of money to do it. The US government is a much larger threat to us than our own government.
All of our tech is owned and operated by US companies, which means the US government has read/write access to all of our data. If we attempt to incentivize domestic software production (e.g. by taxing imported software, or by stipulating where our data can be stored and who can access it), the US government will destroy our economy. This has played out a few times recently.
I can't believe we were so foolish as to let this situation grow. Its going to be a painful few decades.
It's funny, because even if they walk it back, they still would come out ahead in PR versus if they just rolled over. Because at that point, it would look like a hostage victim reading a statement that they are being treated well by their captors in front of a camera.
Do you think that bad things happening is just hilarious in general? Do you like to see good behavior punished? I'm really trying to understand what you get out of making this comment. Also what happens when ... This doesn't happen? You just polluted the epistemic commons a bit more with some cynical bullshit sans consequence? Enough. I think it's time to start calling this garbage out when I see it.
Two things can be true at the same time. It can notionally be a “good” decision and also a straightforward act of Anthropic continuing their PR that they’re some sort of benevolent entity despite continuing to pursue a typical corporate capitalistic structure. It is what it is. The game is the game. But I’m not going to sit there and pretend their virtues are as pure of snow. I’m sorry that’s upset you.
Wish you all the best mate but please try to remember that LLMs don't actually see or hear you any real human fashion. It can be a slippery slope when you forget that
Doesn't this imply a quite insular, and somewhat anti human (if you allow me to be a bit flowery) future? I get other people can be annoying but that's part of us as a species. All of us now just working in our little silo with all our llm tools doesn't seem like a lot of fun long term
Just because you are working with a team of coding agents doesn't mean you don't also get to work with other humans as well.
What's changed is the scope of ambition of the projects you can take on with that team.
Think about a project that a team of 3 could have taken on together in 2022. I expect that many projects of that scale could be handled in 2025 by a single expert coding agent enhanced engineer.
So now we get to ask ourselves what a team of 3 coding agent enhanced engineers working together can take on instead!
I've always been frustrated at how long it takes to build interesting software. Part of the joy for me right now is rediscovering how large a project an individual or a small team can take on.
But video games in general have fallen into that trap. There were certainly more variety in the mainstream/AAA scene in the 90s and 00s than there is now. No more major publisher really is in that mid tier wacky but interesting 6-7.5/10 game space anymore.
It goes back to the point that consolidation long term ends up being bad and the smaller/indie press is good for culture (and that is a big part of what Steam is, and I'd argue where the most interesting things in gaming have come from lately
reply