[augment_me]

I like the blog but the premise of the blog is an engineering/epistemological perspective on the craft. The writer clearly cares more about the process, technique and history more than the feeling and validation.

It could be, that a big part of the the future of hobby's and entertainment in this way is the feeling and validation over the actual performance. Or it can be that a massive amount of people find their value in this content.

[pjc50]

So .. I think we need to ask a deceptively simple question here, which is: is knitting real?

I'll add in an aside to this, which is not only are there fake knitting podcasts there are fake knitting and crochet patterns, which is a problem because people get a substantial way through making them only to discover that they don't work. In some cases the giveaway is that the supposed final image isn't physically possible, like the images in this article, but the fakers can use a real stolen image and just spam a pattern underneath it.

So: what is the knitting that is real? It has to be the use of your hands, needles, and yarn to produce a physical object, right?

The podcasts work towards something else. The identity of "being a knitter". This is a form of "hobby" that was already not unusual, that of discussing a thing without ever bothering to actually do it. Photographers are especially bad at this: too many lenses, not enough photographs. They've also got comprehensively run over by AI, because you can just generate the photographs now. Same for "authors".

But ultimately all these pleasant sensations aren't backed by a connection to the real. If you're going to talk about the history of knitting, shouldn't it be the real, evidenced history? As done by real (usually) women? Otherwise you're just knitting a pleasant fantasy for yourself.

The AI approach is "wireheading": the logical conclusion of all of that would be to find a means of inserting a wire in your head that provides constant pleasant sensations. Achieving happiness through a constant feed of generated images is less effective, but it's the same order of things.

(see also: authenticity in food, which could easily turn into another ten thousand words)

[ratmice]

I'd also say a few things, if knitting takes a long time consider how long it takes to make a good clear pattern so that others can replicate it.

People who make patterns are already dealing with a saturated market. This includes historical/vintage patterns, which for many years patterns were primarily given away freely to incentivize yarn sales, or dominated by publishers. It wasn't until recently (internet, etsy, ravelry) when designers actually had the means to sell directly to consumers. People making an effort to produce usable patterns are now being dwarfed by AI nonsense in the speed of their output. It was already a difficult market. That everybodys images of real objects (along with AI generated ones) are being used to peddle and market patterns that will never work can be really demotivating.

One last thing is how many of the 8 people in this podcast company are actually generating slop and how many are actually just doing marketing?

[augment_me]

I am with you until you make this assumption:

> But ultimately all these pleasant sensations aren't backed by a connection to the real. If you're going to talk about the history of knitting, shouldn't it be the real, evidenced history? As done by real (usually) women? Otherwise you're just knitting a pleasant fantasy for yourself.

If the real is the feeling you get from listening to the podcast or identifying with a subculture, then that is the real for that person. Factual, grounded information is just one take. If it was not this way, we would have much less myths, religions, etc historically.

People will feel the same degree of joy and completion when the final word of the podcast is read like you feel when you finish a really complex piece of work.

[kombookcha]

If you genuinely believe this, there is no point to doing anything at all except heroin. Every moment that you aren't dedicating to being on heroin or getting more heroin, to heroinmaxx if you will, is a net loss.

'But what if I run out though' I hear you ask? Simply finish off on a truly heroic dose and sail into oblivion on a wave of bliss that's much better than all your relationships and hopes and dreams. It's real for you, right? If it makes your friends sad, they could just do some heroin about it. More real than real!

Do not willingly become a lotus eater.

[augment_me]

Look, I get your comparison and while extreme, it's funny. I just have very little faith in that the average person cares this deeply about the physically grounded reality. It's kind of a luxury of the well-off to be able to sit and think about what content to engage with when you just want to relax after a 8 hour shift followed by picking up kids, getting groceries, etc. If someone sees an AI-video that makes them happy or laugh, they send it to their friend who also laughs about it, that's their reality.

We happen to have time to argue about the philosophy about direction of the ontology of information at the downvoted bottom of a HN thread today, most people dont.

[ossopite]

The idea that we could create a world where 'a big part of the future of hobbies and entertainment' is people listening to meaningless words made up by machines that help them feel good about themselves sounds horrifying. How could anybody feel ok about that? What would it say about the society we've built?

[augment_me]

It would say that society changes, and people who were not used to a new world get upset about it, as it has always been throughout the entire history of humanity.

We were used to having psychologists and doctors in person, now the most common form is to have it through apps, and the younger generation does not care, it's in fact more efficient to get a prescription that you like than to spend time going places and having in-person meetings. But older generation finds it hollowing out and horrifying.

You need to accept that society moves on, and it can look different from your perspective.

[simonask]

A looooot of assumptions here. We have yet to see any of these brave new ideas actually work.

Therapy has never been more available, yet mental health is through the basement.

I’m also not seeing any evidence that young people are the driving force behind turning the world to shit. Every Gen Z person I know craves authenticity, connection, and meaningful work. All of this is the opposite.

[augment_me]

It's interesting how every time this argument is made, its about subjective experiences of 'craving'. If this was the objective reality, we would have a majority of Gen Z engaged in movements, social groups and other concepts that would help them fulfill their 'cravings'.

However, it seems to not be the case, it seems like they prefer to spend their free time to doomscroll, or sit at home, and engage more in parasocial relationships that perhaps can be more on their terms, on their timeframes, and with their opinions.

[simonask]

That’s one explanation. The other explanation is that young people feel powerless to change anything, and that they are hooked against their will on deliberately addictive ad delivery platforms.

The more alarming conclusion here happens to be backed by a lot of science, unfortunately, so it’s not easy to dismiss.

[doesnt_know]

The problem is, who is moving “society on” and what is their agenda.

I don’t think it’s healthy to encourage an attitude to just accept all change without any sort of reflection or push back.

[genewitch]

> the younger generation does not care, [...] more efficient to get a prescription that you like [through apps]

Absolutely

> people listening to meaningless words made up by machines that help them feel good about themselves sounds horrifying

Yes

> Every ... person ... craves authenticity, connection, and meaningful work.

Right

> to find a means of inserting a wire in your head that provides constant pleasant sensations.

https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1955-06866-001

> Factual, grounded information is just one take.

Absolutely

[danparsonson]

You could justify basically anything with that logic. Change isn't always about progress.

[augment_me]

In this case, the user is deciding that they choose what progress is. I am saying, that people who use the tool and value the utility of it decide what is progress. If people listen to the podcast, or use doctors in the phone because it provides them any value, it will be a change and a perceived progress for them.

If the generated podcasts did not bring any value to the users, such as validation, or engagement, they would not use them, and there would be no change.

[danparsonson]

> If the generated podcasts did not bring any value to the users, such as validation, or engagement, they would not use them, and there would be no change.

Ever heard of heroin?

[like_any_other]

"But how does the collapse of truth and meaning in society affect you personally?"

https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/2565163-smugjak-but-how-does...

[augment_me]

Your meaning and your truth, not necessarily other peoples who find their meaning and truth in other things.

Go to China, or Congo and you will find that the public might hold a different version of some truths than you do.

We had religions dominating the world order for thousands of years, which projected their versions of the truth onto their societies.

If we would extrapolate that to today and to your opinion, it would be that everyone in the middle ages actually had it all figured out, they knew that the religious texts about splitting oceans or the moon were fake, and were all just playing along with it for the social structure.

Maybe it just happens that the LLM-generated stuff is the next thing in this iteration.

[ratmice]

Can't wear feelings and validation...

[augment_me]

If you only care about the material and physical utility of the product, you can order the sweater from AliExpress for 5% of the cost and no time spent.

[nephihaha]

Knitting is enjoyable for many people and can even be a form of stress relief. AliExpress is just more consumption.

[augment_me]

The same way that the AI generated podcast about knitting, or engaging in consumption is enjoyable for many people and a form of stress relief, which was the point that the comment above was criticizing.

So the conclusion is that the utility of the activity is subjective, and if most people spend their time listening to AI factually incorrect podcasts about knitting and enjoying it, it's no different than knitting yourself and enjoying it. The blog was poor in this disambiguation, and pushed a more Aristotole-like ontological view of what is meaningful, which is more common view in engineering/hard-science dominated fields.

[nephihaha]

They are not the same. One is a passive thing (viewing) and the other is active (physical creation). We should not mistake one for the other. It is like the difference between listening to music and making it.

[ratmice]

It is fine though if people who don't knit enjoy knitting podcasts, but this is not that. Somewhere between the producer/consumer relationship there should exist some actual knitting. Otherwise (in cases like this) it's just plain exploitation.

[augment_me]

That's completely your subjective opinion that ignores reality. If people feel like they are participating in something, or they feel like their identity is based on something they consume passively, it's as valid as the physical thing.

If people did not feel good from passive consumption, no-one would be listening, following or looking at things, people would just make and create all the time, which is obviously not true.

If what you say is true, there would be no value from AI-generating blogs in question, or AI-generated movies/youtube films. Yet both have millions of downloads, views and listens, as the article mentions.

[ratmice]

Seriously? You can't get the feeling of satisfaction of wearing something, or having someone wear something you made from AliExpress. My point is your sense of feeling and validation is extremely distorted if you have no knitted material to show for it?

[augment_me]

Completely subjective take by you with similar epistemology around value as the blog author.

People might not care. I might identify as a runner because I bought a little jacket, expensive shoes, and wide-purple-tinted sunglasses, do I have to run? Not necessarily if the objects and my identity gives me the feeling of completion and satisfaction.

If your premise was true for all people, and the sense would be distorted, we would not see these phenomena, and people wouldn't listen or engage with AI-content. But the biological reality and the path of least resistance seems to prove us otherwise.