[eru]

Funny enough, depending on your exact definition of 'algorithm' either essentially everything you can do on a computer is an algorithm or there some weird and annoying exceptions.

For example many definitions include the requirement that an algorithm has to terminate for every input. And I suspect that there are probably some bugs lurking somewhere in the HN codebase that make it go into the occasional infinite loop. So technically it's not an algorithm by definition.

(And even weirder, because I just suspect it might have those bugs, but I don't know for sure, I have to admit that I don't know whether HN is powered by an algorithm.)

I agree with you that for practical definitions we can go by a definition that's essentially: 'by algorithm we just mean "computer program", but we want to focus on the abstract things it's doing, and not details of the concrete implementation.'

[j_maffe]

In the context of social media, algorithms specifically mean recommendation algorithms that try to curtail the feed for end users. It is much more specific than the abstract definition of algorithms.

[BlueTemplar]

Using neural networks IMHO falls outside of the definition of an algorithm, because then it becomes something that not even its authors are able to inspect (understand/explain). (Which in some contexts is a legal requirement.)

[eru]

Which definition of algorithm are you using here?

The formal definition of algorithm doesn't really require that a human can inspect them, nor understand nor explain, or does it?

> (Which in some contexts is a legal requirement.)

That's another can of worms. Which contexts are you talking about?