this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2023
15 points (94.1% liked)

TechTakes

1481 readers
359 users here now

Big brain tech dude got yet another clueless take over at HackerNews etc? Here's the place to vent. Orange site, VC foolishness, all welcome.

This is not debate club. Unless it’s amusing debate.

For actually-good tech, you want our NotAwfulTech community

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
15
zucc v2 - possibly worse (www.404media.co)
submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
12 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Halm, who according to his social media profiles just graduated from Harvard, tweeted that he’s simply in the arena trying stuff.

"I just wanna buuuuuuuuilllddddd" goes the annoying little fuck even before he's asked any questions about social impact and such

“The goal is to create the most addicting & personalized image recommendation system. V1 is as simple as possible. Future versions trained on current data will enable even more personalized images & user interaction in image generation."

just fuck right off

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

couple things:

  1. in the article it turns out he isn't even actually generating the images, he just created 187 AI images and it rotates through them
  2. one of the most insane things about our society right now has to be that someone can come out and say "the goal is to create the most addicting thing" and expect praise for it :/
  3. a woman made a version with men, "FriendOrFoeAI", and the twitter replies (and her replies to them) are amazing

Would you still find it in bad taste if it asked "Do you find her attractive? Yes/No" to fine tune mating preferences rather than the crude "Smash or Pass"?

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

one of the most insane things about our society right now has to be that someone can come out and say “the goal is to create the most addicting thing” and expect praise for it :/

We have been primed for this

google search for "top ux books" shows top two "dont make me think" and "hooked"

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Y’know, I don’t recognise either of these things (prima facie). Might recognise output influenced by / derived off them?

But now I guess I have to look at ‘em both sometime

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Don't Make Me Think is arguably the seminal web design book. Its first edition was a series of UI design principles accompanied by an example of how Amazon does it. I know there have been revisions, and I'm assuming most of them are new examples to replace the Amazon ones. It was from a time when Amazon could fit their product categories on one row of tabs. Anyway, all of the design principles are based on removal of navigational barriers. It's a very good book and one I used a lot in my early days. My loss of love for it is based on the sense that it played a significant role in the rise of UX and standardisation of these techniques separate to the things they are applied to.

Hooked, on the other hand, is a step-by-step guide to making casino games disguised as useful apps. It's a shameful book and its popularity in the community is representative of the confused motives of UX practitioners.

Both worth reading if only to come back and argue with me about my views :)

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Yeah I saw (1). It mostly made me almost chuckle in the “I’m actually wincing inside” way (I’m not even surprised at that kind of grift anyway, I’ve just seen too much of it from coiners)

To (2), heh. Yeah, it’s pretty wild.

(3) I saw, but didn’t see the replies because i refuse to give birdsite logged-in view metrics. My tiny part in helping nosedive Felon Tusk’s shittery. But it in turn means I can’t see replies, because they intentionally broke reply-visibility on loginless display

I more meant my post as to the person instead of the “product”, but I guess I wasn’t really clear about that, mea culpa

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Oh I wasn't commenting to criticize you -- just adding more insane context for people who didn't feel like reading the full article lol

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Fair enough :)

Because workthings I’m in super literal mode all day and don’t tend to read tone/subtext by default

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

No worries!

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

"fine tune mating preferences" eurgh, who let the evopsychs see this?