#electronic brains

[stevebattle]

Algedonic Computer by Stafford Beer (1972) “manufactured to the instructions of Stafford Beer Esq., by T.C. Macnamara Ltd. and N.T. Griffin, Exter University.” This is an heuristically programmed algorithmic computer, trained through an algedonic loop. “An heuristic specifies a method of behaving which will tends towards a goal which cannot be precisely specified because we know what it is but not where it is … so the computer must be supplied with an algorithm determining a heuristic … the computer must find out over a period, by trial and error, the courses of action which lead to better results of control. … In our invention, it follows, we must provide the machine with an algedonic receptor. … To reward the machine for shining red, we shall tell him, one presses the switch marked Reward. … This alters the 50-50 probability of an outcome to 60-40 in favour of Red. If the green light comes on nevertheless, as it may, the machine has to be punished. The observer is told to press the switch marked Punish. … It is readily seen that the algedonic loop will cause the machine to adapt its behaviour to a red outcome.” – Brain of the Firm, Stafford Beer.

[warm-glowing-warming-glow]

[scipunk]

The Terminal Man (1974)

[andmaybegayer]

cock synchronization, cock jitter, cock drift, cock skew, multiple cock domains.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Meatspace twiddling

I'm on tour with my new, nationally bestselling novel The Bezzle! Catch me next weekend (Mar 30/31) in ANAHEIM at WONDERCON, then in Boston with Randall "XKCD" Munroe (Apr 11), then Providence (Apr 12), and beyond!

"Enshittification" isn't just a way of describing the symptoms of platform decay: it's also a theory of the mechanism of decay – the means by which platforms get shittier and shittier until they are a giant pile of shit.

I call that mechanism "twiddling": this is the ability of digital services to alter their business-logic – the prices they charge, the payouts they offer, the particulars of the deal – from instant to instant, for each user, continuously:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/02/19/twiddler/

Contrary to Big Tech's own boasting about its operations, the tricks that tech firms play to siphon value away from business customers and end-users aren't very sophisticated. They're crude gimmicks, like offering a higher per-hour wage to Uber drivers whom the algorithm judges to be picky about which rides they'll clock in for, and then lowering the wage by small increments as a way of lulling the driver into gradually accepting a permanent lower rate:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/04/12/algorithmic-wage-discrimination/#fishers-of-men

This is a simple trick. The difference is that tech platforms like Uber can play it over and over, and very quickly. There's plenty of wage-stealing scumbag bosses who'd have loved to have shaved pennies off their workers' paychecks, then added a few cents back in if a worker cried foul, then started shaving the pennies again. The thing that stopped those bosses was the bottleneck of payroll clerks, who couldn't make the changes fast enough.

Uber plays crude tricks – like claiming that a driver isn't an employee because the control is mediated through an app – and then piles more crude tricks on top – this algorithmic wage discrimination gambit.

Have you ever watched a shell-game performed very slowly?

https://www.masterclass.com/articles/how-to-do-penn-tellers-famous-cups-and-balls-trick-in-12-steps

It's a series of very simple gimmicks, performed very quickly and smoothly. Computers are very quick and very smooth. The quickness of the hand deceives the eye: do crude tricks with superhuman speed and they'll seem sophisticated.

The one bright spot in the Great Enshittening that we're living through is that many firms are not sufficiently digitized to to these crude tricks very quickly. Take grocery stores: they can get up to a lot of the same tricks as Amazon – for example, they can charge suppliers for placement on the most prominent, easiest-to-reach shelves, reorganizing your shopping based on which companies pay the biggest bribes, rather than offering the best products and prices.

But Amazon takes this to a whole different level – beyond simply organizing their product pages based on payola, they do this for search. You ask Amazon, "What's your cheapest batteries?" and it lies to you. If you click the first link in a search-results page, you'll pay 29% more than you would if you got the best product – a product that is, on average, 17 places down on the results page. Amazon makes $38b/year taking bribes to lie to you:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/11/06/attention-rents/#consumer-welfare-queens

Amazon can do more than that. Thanks to its digital nature, it can continuously reprice its offerings – indeed, it can simply make up each price displayed on every product at the instant you look at it – based on its surveillance data about you, estimating your willingness to pay. For sellers, Amazon can continuously re-weight the likelihood that a given product will be shown to a customer based on the seller's willingness to discount their products, even to the point where they go out of business:

https://www.businessinsider.com/sadistic-amazon-treated-book-sellers-the-way-a-cheetah-would-pursue-a-sickly-gazelle-2013-10

Twiddling, in other words, lets digital services honeycomb their servers with sneaky wormholes that let them siphon value away from one kind of platform user and give it to another (as when Apple silently began spying on Iphone owners to create profiles for advertisers), or to themselves.

But hard-goods businesses struggle to do this kind of twiddling. Not for lack of desire – but for lack of capacity. Jeff Bezos, owner of Amazon Fresh – an online grocery store – can change prices and layout millions of times per day, at effectively zero cost. Jeff Bezos, owner of Whole Foods – a brick-and-mortar grocer – needs a army of teenagers on rollerskates with pricing guns to achieve a fraction of this agility.

So hard-goods businesses are somewhat enshittification-resistant. It's not that their owners are more interested in the welfare of their customers, workers and suppliers – they merely lack the capacity to continuously rejigger the way their business runs.

Well, about that.

Grocers have been experimenting with "electronic shelf labels" in order to do "dynamic pricing" – that means that prices change quickly, in response to circumstances:

https://www.npr.org/2024/03/06/1197958433/dynamic-pricing-grocery-supermarkets

This doesn't have to be bad! As @planetmoney points out, it's a little weird that grocers don't discount milk whose sell-by date is drawing near. That milk is worth less to shoppers, because they have to use it more quickly lest it expire. Instead of marking down the price of perishable goods – day-old lettuce, yesterday's bread, etc – grocers put them on the shelves next to fresher, more valuable products, leading to billions of dollars' worth of food-waste and and unimaginable quantities of methane-producing, planet-cooking landfill.

In Norway, ESLs are pretty well established and – at least according to Planet Money's reporting – they are used exclusively to offer discounts in order to reduce waste. They make everyone better off.

But towards the end of the story, they note that Norway's grocery sector – which alters prices up to 2,000 times per day – has been accused of using ESLs to rig prices, hiking them and blaming them on pandemic supply-chain problems and loose monetary policy. Greedflation, in other words.

Greedflation is rampant in the grocery sector, all around the world. Remember when the price of eggs doubled and they blamed in on bird-flu, even as the CEO of the one company that owns every egg brand you've ever heard of boasted about how he could hike prices and suckers would just pay it?

https://pluralistic.net/2023/01/23/cant-make-an-omelet/#keep-calm-and-crack-on

In Canada, grocers rigged the price of bread, the most Les-Mis-ass form of corporate crime you can imagine (do you want guillotines, Galen Weston? Because this is how you get guillotines):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_price-fixing_in_Canada

EU grocers – another highly concentrated industry – also collude to rig prices:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/09/17/how-to-think-about-scraping/

Which is all to say that while these companies don't have to use the twiddling capabilities that come with ESLs to enshittify their stores, we'd be pretty fucking naive to assume that they won't.

And here's the bad news: US grocers like Whole Foods (owned by Amazon, the company that wrote the enshittification playbook) are already experimenting with ESLs. So is Alberstons/Safeway, the massive, inbred conglomerate that has already demonstrated its passion for using twiddling to fuck over their workers:

https://knock-la.com/vons-fires-delivery-drivers-prop-22-e899ee24ffd0/

Economists love "price discrimination" – where prices change based on circumstance, trying to match the perfect price with the perfect customer. On paper, that sounds plausible: if I need a quart of milk for a recipe I'm making tonight and I get a 50% discount on some about-to-expire 2%, then everyone's better off. I get a discount and the grocer gets some money for milk they'd have to throw away at the end of the day.

But these elegant, self-licking ice-cream cones only emerge if the corporation offering the deal is constrained. Perhaps they're constrained by competition – the fear that you'll go elsewhere. Or perhaps they're constrained by regulation – the fear that they'll be punished if they use twiddling-tech to cheat you.

The grocery sector, dominated by a cartel of massive companies that routinely collude to rip us off, is not constrained by competition. And for years, regulators let them get away with ripping us off (though finally that might be changing):

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/21/us/politics/grocery-prices-pandemic-ftc.html?unlocked_article_code=1.ek0.t2Pr.g4n2usbxEcoa

For neoclassical economists, the answer to all this is "caveat emptor" – let the buyer beware. If you want to make sure that ESLs are only used to offer you discounts and not to gouge prices, all you need to do is note the price of everything you buy, every time you buy it, and triple-check it every time you go back to the grocery store. Just be eternally vigilant!

Thing is, the one thing computers are much better at than humans is vigilance. With ESLs and other twiddling mechanisms, you're a fish on a hook, and the seller is tireless in giving you a little more slack, then a little less, until you finally drop your guard.

Economists desperately want these elegant models to work, but "efficient market hypothesis" is a brain-worm that always turns into apologetics for fraud. Dynamic markets sound like a good idea, but they are catnip for cheaters. "Just be eternally vigilant" is miserable advice, and no way to live your life:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/02/24/passive-income/#swiss-cheese-security

In his brilliant novel Spook Country, @GreatDismal describes augmented reality as "cyberspace everting" – that is, turning inside-out:

https://memex.craphound.com/2007/07/31/william-gibsons-spook-country/

The extrusion of twiddling technology from digital platforms into the physical world isn't cyberspace everting so much as it is cyberspace prolapsing.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/03/26/glitchbread/#electronic-shelf-tags

[strawberrybyers]

STOP IF WILL IS WITH MIKE AND EL AT THE RADIO STATION PLACE AND THE STRANGER THINGS BROADCAST CHANNEL POSTED BOOKS ABOUT ELECTRICITY AND LIGHTS AND RADIOS WHICH I WROTE IN A POST ABOUT HERE AND ONE OF THE BUILDINGS THEY’RE FILMING AT IS CALLED 5000 WATTS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT WHICH HAS TO DO WITH LIGHTING AND WILL WAS ABLE TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO COMMUNICATE FROM THE UPSIDE DOWN WITH LIGHTS AND GOING BACK TO S2 THEY USED THE RADIO TO PLAY MUSIC TO COMMUNICATE WITH WILL AND WE KNOW MUSIC PLAYS A BIG ROLE IN BEING PROTECTED BY VECNA AND EL CAN ALSO COMMUNICATE WITH RADIO FREQUENCIES AND SOMEHOW ALL THIS TIES INTO MIKE BEING THERE TO SAVE WILL ONCE AGAIN AND THAT LEADS TO BYLER ENDGAME

[ingravinoveritas]

electronic-chocolate replied to your post "Just wanted to make a separate post about this…”

I had an argument on here with someone who said that michael is a straight man who's just started queerbaiting bc he wanted to appeal to the gomens fandom💀

@electronic-chocolate Oh my God. That has to be right up there with someone calling Michael a non-practicing bisexual a few months ago. What's interesting to me is how five years ago, people talked a lot more easily/readily about Michael's sexuality--not his sexual orientation, but in the sense of viewing him as a sexual being--whereas nowadays, he's been rendered almost sexless. I know the "family man" image Michael has been boxed into is at least part of the reason for that, but it's hard to think that this isn't also an unconscious response to his queerness becoming more visible and more loud (as if it wasn't visible/loud enough already) in recent times--specifically, Michael's overtly sexual comments about David.

In 2014, Michael talked about Sarah Silverman putting her hand on his butt and made cheeky quips about Lizzy Caplan's breasts on the MoS commentary, and nobody blinked an eye. Ten years later, he's not making those type of comments about a particular woman, or any woman. Instead, Michael is making those comments about David--about his slinky hips, his sylph-like chest, about how attractive David is--and suddenly, it's a big deal. People are seeing what's in front of them and either rationalizing or outright ignoring it, all while choosing to believe those comments couldn't possibly have those same sexual overtones because Michael is talking about a man.

But not only is the argument of the person you mentioned entirely specious on a surface level (because as we know, real people cannot "queerbait," as that term applies to fictional characters/media), it also manages to ignore absolutely everything Michael has said over the last five years about playing Aziraphale and Good Omens in general: How he decided before filming even began that Aziraphale is in love with Crowley, and the acting choices he made in every scene with David that were in the service of that relationship. The way Michael has said he always misses being Aziraphale when they're not filming, and how he doesn't know where the character ends and he begins.

There is also the fact that Michael has played a tremendous number of queer roles over the years--long before Good Omens--and none of them had anything to do with appealing to a fandom or fan base of any kind. Michael once previously said that every character he plays is "him"--that is, there is some piece of the character that is a part of who he is. And when you take that sentiment and put it alongside the multitude of queer roles and Michael's recent comments on the death podcast about his crush on John Taylor and his struggles with gender expression, it forms a clear, rounded picture of exactly who Michael Sheen is.

Not "queerbaiting"...just queer. Even if he doesn't label it specifically, and also because he shouldn't have to. Insisting on calling Michael straight despite all of the above and everything else Michael has shared about himself erases every part of his sexuality, not just the parts someone is uncomfortable with. I just wish more people understood that...

[stevebattle]

An Electronic “Brain” by E. Harris Morgan, Newnes Practical Mechanics, June 1953. “Within recent years some scientists have attempted to create machines which duplicate the actions of the human brain. The piece of apparatus described … is one such machine. Like the human brain, it can receive messages and send instructions; it possesses a memory and it can apparently reason. It is left to the reader to decide how justifiably it can be called a brain. The problem which the apparatus is set is to play a game of “noughts and crosses” in which the brain of the apparatus is pitted against a human brain. In order to carry out its purpose, the apparatus must posses a means of perceiving the actions of its opponent; it must posses a memory and a selective mechanism to determine the correct answering play; and it must have a method of indicating its decision. Some of these processes are carried out mechanically and some electrically in the instrument to be described.”

[possible-streetwear]

[grimark]

not what i really need to be devoting my time to wondering about right now, but i can’t help being distracted by the question of: what the hell powers murderbot’s organic components if it doesn’t eat or drink.

[sometimesanequine]

a horf based on your favorite game! :D

big fan of neko atsume, im not really a gamer if i want to play a game its either some sort of mind game (puzzle/learning/building up physical skills) or i go pace around until i dont want to play anymore

but neko atsume is a staple along side pocket frogs, have nearly every added item on neko atsume2 rn, this includes remodels and wallpapers 😔👍 cant really capture neko atsume in a horse but i tried

[antisocialxconstruct]

mannnnn so after I jumped through hoops to get this white dog variant.... the very same day it was out for delivery, I got an email from kikagoods telling me I could get it for free because I bought the complete electronic pets set 😭 (it's all well and good though bc my partner wanted it too 😌)

I wanted to see if I could restyle the original dog to kinda match the vibe a little more, and then in the process a whole narrative emerged in my head about siblings on opposite sides of some kind of magical war 😨

[deathandnonexistentialdread]

Trapping a person's soul in a televison, I get that?

But a card? No

[tempered-grace]

HYBRID THEORY?????? In my AP Chem class??????

[thepixelblender]

excellent artwork with an audience of maybe 3 people