Algorithms are breaking how we think

I think reading is an essential skill, but we also need to get reading out of the pedestal. Because a lot of the time these arguments come across as some sort of literary elitism. Like if you're not ingesting information through reading, it doesn't count. This month I spent many hours listening to lectures on youtube about geopolitics on the Asian continent from the naval war college. Sure I could have read it, but nevertheless I got curious about a topic, engaged in it, and "followed the rabbit holes" I think there is a case to be made that we need to be more active in information seeking, rather than just being fed what the algorithm suggests you - on that topic Technology connections recently made a really good exposition of that issue -- [this video] -- But it should not be about the method of ingesting information, but the quality and the intent of it.

The YouTube channel Technology Connections recently made a video [1] about this and used the term "Algorithmic Complacency" to encompass how many people would rather be fed content determined by their algo of choice than seek it out. But for those who do want a return to the "Web", I think there are plenty of existing tools for this. RSS feeds allow you to follow independent blogs and websites. BlueSky and Mastadon can be used to curate a list of like minded people who will suggest other cool people or content to check out. YouTube has a Subscriptions tab that is not influenced by the algorithm. That being said, I applaud anyone who wants to make the independent web more accessible and popular. We need alternatives to the infinite scroll fed to us by massive tech companies. [1] [this video]

> I think that majority prefer "algorithms" to serve them information This possibility was the theme of the (most?) recent video essay on the YouTube Technology Connections channel: [this video] There's definitely something to the appeal of algorithmic feeds, I suspect there's a fundamental neurological mechanism* in play which encourages us to scan somewhere for novel appearances / developments, same as seeing what's in the garden or on the market or who is present at the oasis etc etc. But there's probably more to be said for consciously directing attention. (*There's a certain d-word that probably has a genuine neurochemical meaning when not laden by a lot of popular baggage as it's entered colloquial use that I am intentionally not using because at this point I'd suspect it encourages misunderstanding more than helps, but I'm willing to believe it's related.)

Rarely. I feel lost when I use GPS to get places. Alec Watson of Technology Connections points out that GPS routing defaults to minimizing time, even when that may not the most logical way to get somewhere. His commentary, which starts at [this video] , is an example of his larger argument about the complacency of letting automation do things for you. His example is a Google Maps routing which saves one minute by going a long way to use a fast expressway (plus $1 toll), rather than more direct but slower state routes and surface streets. It optimizes one variable - time - of the many variables which might be important to you - wear&tear, toll costs, and the delight of knowing more about what's going on in the neighborhood. His makes the point that he is not calling for a return to paper maps, but rather to reject automation complacency, which I'll interpret as letting the GPS figure everything out for you. We've all heard stories of people depending on their GPS too much then ending up stuck on a forest road, or in a lake, or other place which requires rescue - what's the equivalent failure mode with a calculator?