I prefer Gartner’s Hype Cycle[1] way of displaying this. This post seems pretty inspired by it but the removal of the graph really makes it harder to grok quickly.
Still, the trend seems to be:
1. New technology, over promises
2. Marketing latches onto the overpromise and bolsters it, regardless of lack of research
3. Companies built around the technology fail, until a few find the niche the technology fits into.
Makes you wonder how much money is wasted on just trying to capitalize on new tech. The last company I worked for wasted loads chasing the latest and greatest.
Gartner‘s hype cycle is what many products go through and they settle at some kind of normal utility. This post describes the amplitude (y axis) of Gartner‘s chart imho.
> Examples here are (again) the cryptocurrency scene which has been pretty good at othering critics as “no-coiners” or lately with the phrase “have fun staying poor”.
I’m somebody that spends a good deal of time thinking deeply on cryptocurrencies and the implications to society. I believe they a positive, revolutionary step in the right direction of human liberty. And I’ll gladly acknowledge that it’s still speculative until it’s not.
But crypto, like any other movement, attracts total scumbags. It’s unfortunate because people who speak negatively only serve to undermine their group - whether it’s crypto or a social cause group etc. and often they, themselves, are the insecure ignorant one that don’t even deeply understand what they’re fighting for.
IMO the technology blockchain has only demonstrated success in 1 application which is cryptocurrency. Cryptocurrency has only demonstrated success in 2 applications: speculative investment and illegal online purchases. I would include NFT’s under the speculative investment category.
These applications are obviously problematic for 3 main reasons: it wastes enormous amounts of energy, the investment is often at the expense of less tech/financial savvy people, and most people don’t want it to be easier for criminals to conduct financial transactions.
IMO, it is not a few bad apples spoiling the bunch. It is a bunch of bad apples with a few good apples mixed in. Even if your motivations in working in this space are good (not simply for your own technical stimulation/amusement), you are trading off furthering/enabling real world harm now against optimistic speculation about future positive outcomes.
Crypto is not practical or fair by design. It needs a steady supply of greater fools to operate, and the only future it's capable of creating is one where everything is monetized, corporatized and the wealthy is in charge, with no recourse for the rest of us.
I wish the chart had a negative dimension as well, or if not a negative one, then increase the number of levels of hype.
I say this because as I read it, I think how little hype I put into some of my work, so little that it may not even register on the base level of hype. The downplaying, even discounting successes or achievements I've attained with products and such.
Perhaps such things don't belong there as they're almost the opposite of hype, and yet I think it would help me see the full spectrum of promotion and help me navigate it more confidently.
As someone who used to have a similar level of "humility", i always felt uncomfortable doing self-promotion. You will also notice that others are much more serious about self-promotion. To the level where there is not much substance when you investigate. I have resigned to the view that, this is the society we live in. Things may always not be as they seem, one has to look closer and recognize the diamonds in the rough.
I was also thinking about 'negativity', but more along the lines of: I'm missing the author saying what the legal gray areas are. I mean, in level 2 he already talks about "fraud". ;)
I like this for several reasons, mostly because I like people trying to be somewhat concrete and quantitative about ideas that have a lot of saliency but tend to be thrown around only conceptually. The scale also makes some sense to be based on experience.
I'm not sure the ratings of all the examples are quite right; some of them I think might be over or underhyped more than the author proposes. This isn't too big of a deal to me though, as it seems more like misapplication of the scale rather than the scale itself.
The other thing I might suggest is that I'm not sure the 3-4-5 levels are all that distinct, especially 4 and 5.
Most importantly along these lines, my experience is that the "othering" level can happen well within the realm of 3 and 4. so although I agree that the "othering" phenomenon occurs, I don't see it as distinct from 3 and 4, it's just that the magnitude of it increases as you go up in hype. "Othering" seems like another component dimension, along with present vs future focus and empirical basis for claims.
So something like this with levels 3-5 compressed, or maybe just 4-5, makes a lot of sense to me, like it's something you could maybe actually apply in some kind of scientific study.
Kind of similar to this Conspiracy Levels chart that was making the rounds a few months ago[1], including the crucial “departure from reality” tipping point, and the “XYZ as your group identity” level. No doubt promoters of major conspiracies have studied marketing, as they are are adept at generating belief and hype out of nothing.
George Soros is a conspiracy theory? No, he's a real guy who has spent many millions to influence politics. How does somebody put together something so stupid as that chart? It's really impressive.
I’m probably in some kind of bubble, but is that hyped? I mainly hear about it on HN, maybe a bunch of joking off-hand comments on Reddit. No one else seem to care about it at all. So, my bubble in Germany, or is it actually a thing in the USA?
Self-driving cars, yes, but I'd say AI/ML in general reached at least level 3/4 at some point over the past few years. Seems to be cooling off a bit these days, though.
Hah I was also thinking how neatly these categories fit into the worst examples of language evangelism. Some are definitely at this stage!
> Examples here are (again) the cryptocurrency scene which has been pretty good at othering critics as “no-coiners” or lately with the phrase “have fun staying poor”.
I don't agree with the categorization of “full self-driving” as "LEVEL 2: EXAGGERATED CLAIMS".
There is no proof that self driving cars will ever be able to navigate in e.g. European cities with narrow streets and without lines on them.
Full driving would mean driving autonomous everywhere and between a highway with visible signs and lines and streets without any markings is a big difference.
its more like "LEVEL 3: UTOPIAN FUTURES" because there is the potential for it but no current systems can handle difficult situations in streets without clear markings.
That’s an odd requirement. There is no proof Intel will ever put out a faster chip. There is in general no proof for any new technology because it hasn’t been built yet.
Narrow city streets aren’t vastly different than normal city streets, and people used to constantly say sure operating on highways is easy, show me self driving cars inside cities. I think people underestimate how long self driving cars are going to take, but they are already good enough to be useful which means companies will continually invest in being just a little bit better.
Looking back automatic transmissions took decades and where seriously flawed for most of that time, but just a little bit better every year and eventually they became the default. Cruse control and every other major innovation went through that same cycle, it’s just that once something is good enough to be the default it has been around so long nobody wakes up and says “wow it’s finally ready” because it’s been in use for a long time.
IMO, take everything people are generally expecting self driving to be in 2030 and it’s going to be ready in 2060 and the default by 2090.
Narrow streets can be equipped with some kind of helping beacons one day, much like they were equipped with street lamps and canalization in the previous centuries.
Anyway, this is a fairly low percentage of the total street network. Even in Prague the medieval center is smallish (and many of those streets are off-limits to regular car traffic).
Honestly, small streets where there's really only one thing you can do (go straight forward but don't drive into anything) are not as hard as where cars are already driving today because the speeds are very low and the distances you have to consider are are pretty short. This is not like making unprotected lefts across 6 lanes of traffic in Beijing.
The hype around "full self driving" is exaggerated because today it's not even "limited self driving," let alone SOTA.
The tech industry has always been bullish on "the future" so I don't think this is different today; what does feel different is it seems hype is now the end product vs. hype about the underlying advancement. This may be inevitable in the highly commercialized, mature space that the internet has become.
Nicely observed. This has more to do with how people think than how the world works; which means that no step of the hype train here needs to be connected to reality in any way. The product doesn't have to even exist to benefit from hype; that's how religions and dancing plagues happen.
This doesn't just apply to new technology but also social/political/economic ideas too. I would have liked to see levels beyond 5 (i.e. the part where reality catches back up, the hype collapses, the backlash starts, etc)
I feel like this article itself is overhyped. I don't really see anything ground-breaking here, and the author doesn't really elaborate on why the examples fit into the arbitrary categories given.
> This categorization is intended to help people better understand which form of hype they‘re confronted with.
> I hope this categorization is helpful for you to understand which form of hype you‘re confronted with.
But to what end? No mention of what you can actually do with this information. I guess it's useful if you want to try to sound like the smartest person in the room when explaining it to average people who only dabble in keeping up with tech trends. They probably won't question you. The fact that the draft image went viral on Twitter is case in point.
I'd even venture to say that this probably deserves a flag.
Why would having a technology as a part of group identity lead to utopian claims? Unless the group/technology feels threatened.
Linux is an important part of my identity and I will happily watch how infidels struggle with their malware-ridden proprietary tech, knowing most of them can't be saved anyway.
Linux already went through its hype cycle like 20 years ago. I'd say the high water mark of that cycle was around the release of Cathedral and the Bazaar and the destruction of the VA Linux stock.
I'm a Linux fanboy too, but let's not fool ourselves. If Linux ever went "mainstream", then the amount of malware targeting it would rise precipitously. See: Android
I am not sure if there is a linear trajectory. With some hypes the "othering" starts early and itself acts as a booster for hype, by creating the "initiated" group that everyone wants to be a part of.
Also, unrelated, but for some reason, while reading, I kept thinking that COVID-19 vaccines fit all these levels quite well.
[+] [-] yakattak|4 years ago|reply
Still, the trend seems to be: 1. New technology, over promises 2. Marketing latches onto the overpromise and bolsters it, regardless of lack of research 3. Companies built around the technology fail, until a few find the niche the technology fits into.
Makes you wonder how much money is wasted on just trying to capitalize on new tech. The last company I worked for wasted loads chasing the latest and greatest.
[1]: https://www.gartner.com/en/documents/3887767/understanding-g...
[+] [-] WA|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jollybean|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eric_cc|4 years ago|reply
I’m somebody that spends a good deal of time thinking deeply on cryptocurrencies and the implications to society. I believe they a positive, revolutionary step in the right direction of human liberty. And I’ll gladly acknowledge that it’s still speculative until it’s not.
But crypto, like any other movement, attracts total scumbags. It’s unfortunate because people who speak negatively only serve to undermine their group - whether it’s crypto or a social cause group etc. and often they, themselves, are the insecure ignorant one that don’t even deeply understand what they’re fighting for.
[+] [-] sepiasaucer|4 years ago|reply
These applications are obviously problematic for 3 main reasons: it wastes enormous amounts of energy, the investment is often at the expense of less tech/financial savvy people, and most people don’t want it to be easier for criminals to conduct financial transactions.
IMO, it is not a few bad apples spoiling the bunch. It is a bunch of bad apples with a few good apples mixed in. Even if your motivations in working in this space are good (not simply for your own technical stimulation/amusement), you are trading off furthering/enabling real world harm now against optimistic speculation about future positive outcomes.
[+] [-] Comevius|4 years ago|reply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQ_xWvX1n9g
[+] [-] zepto|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jimkleiber|4 years ago|reply
I say this because as I read it, I think how little hype I put into some of my work, so little that it may not even register on the base level of hype. The downplaying, even discounting successes or achievements I've attained with products and such.
Perhaps such things don't belong there as they're almost the opposite of hype, and yet I think it would help me see the full spectrum of promotion and help me navigate it more confidently.
[+] [-] ismail|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rambambram|4 years ago|reply
I was also thinking about 'negativity', but more along the lines of: I'm missing the author saying what the legal gray areas are. I mean, in level 2 he already talks about "fraud". ;)
[+] [-] derbOac|4 years ago|reply
I'm not sure the ratings of all the examples are quite right; some of them I think might be over or underhyped more than the author proposes. This isn't too big of a deal to me though, as it seems more like misapplication of the scale rather than the scale itself.
The other thing I might suggest is that I'm not sure the 3-4-5 levels are all that distinct, especially 4 and 5.
Most importantly along these lines, my experience is that the "othering" level can happen well within the realm of 3 and 4. so although I agree that the "othering" phenomenon occurs, I don't see it as distinct from 3 and 4, it's just that the magnitude of it increases as you go up in hype. "Othering" seems like another component dimension, along with present vs future focus and empirical basis for claims.
So something like this with levels 3-5 compressed, or maybe just 4-5, makes a lot of sense to me, like it's something you could maybe actually apply in some kind of scientific study.
[+] [-] ryandrake|4 years ago|reply
1: https://m.imgur.com/XY5PAvd
[+] [-] mynameishere|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] password54321|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Nuzzerino|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mberning|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] marginalia_nu|4 years ago|reply
"No Man's Sky" is also an interesting case study.
[+] [-] Semaphor|4 years ago|reply
I’m probably in some kind of bubble, but is that hyped? I mainly hear about it on HN, maybe a bunch of joking off-hand comments on Reddit. No one else seem to care about it at all. So, my bubble in Germany, or is it actually a thing in the USA?
[+] [-] codebolt|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dopidopHN|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] pessimizer|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bregma|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ferdowsi|4 years ago|reply
> Examples here are (again) the cryptocurrency scene which has been pretty good at othering critics as “no-coiners” or lately with the phrase “have fun staying poor”.
[+] [-] ksec|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Wronnay|4 years ago|reply
There is no proof that self driving cars will ever be able to navigate in e.g. European cities with narrow streets and without lines on them.
Full driving would mean driving autonomous everywhere and between a highway with visible signs and lines and streets without any markings is a big difference.
its more like "LEVEL 3: UTOPIAN FUTURES" because there is the potential for it but no current systems can handle difficult situations in streets without clear markings.
[+] [-] Retric|4 years ago|reply
That’s an odd requirement. There is no proof Intel will ever put out a faster chip. There is in general no proof for any new technology because it hasn’t been built yet.
Narrow city streets aren’t vastly different than normal city streets, and people used to constantly say sure operating on highways is easy, show me self driving cars inside cities. I think people underestimate how long self driving cars are going to take, but they are already good enough to be useful which means companies will continually invest in being just a little bit better.
Looking back automatic transmissions took decades and where seriously flawed for most of that time, but just a little bit better every year and eventually they became the default. Cruse control and every other major innovation went through that same cycle, it’s just that once something is good enough to be the default it has been around so long nobody wakes up and says “wow it’s finally ready” because it’s been in use for a long time.
IMO, take everything people are generally expecting self driving to be in 2030 and it’s going to be ready in 2060 and the default by 2090.
[+] [-] inglor_cz|4 years ago|reply
Anyway, this is a fairly low percentage of the total street network. Even in Prague the medieval center is smallish (and many of those streets are off-limits to regular car traffic).
[+] [-] hiptobecubic|4 years ago|reply
The hype around "full self driving" is exaggerated because today it's not even "limited self driving," let alone SOTA.
[+] [-] winphone1974|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] claaams|4 years ago|reply
Hyperloop? Cybertruck? Fully self driving cars?
[+] [-] h2odragon|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] PebblesRox|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] umvi|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nerdponx|4 years ago|reply
But I agree that this applies to things other than technology. Sometimes it seems like most political movements lie somewhere between levels 3 and 5.
[+] [-] Nuzzerino|4 years ago|reply
> This categorization is intended to help people better understand which form of hype they‘re confronted with.
> I hope this categorization is helpful for you to understand which form of hype you‘re confronted with.
But to what end? No mention of what you can actually do with this information. I guess it's useful if you want to try to sound like the smartest person in the room when explaining it to average people who only dabble in keeping up with tech trends. They probably won't question you. The fact that the draft image went viral on Twitter is case in point.
I'd even venture to say that this probably deserves a flag.
[+] [-] thriftwy|4 years ago|reply
Linux is an important part of my identity and I will happily watch how infidels struggle with their malware-ridden proprietary tech, knowing most of them can't be saved anyway.
[+] [-] pram|4 years ago|reply
Now it's deeply in the plateau of productivity.
[+] [-] umvi|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _fnhr|4 years ago|reply
Also, unrelated, but for some reason, while reading, I kept thinking that COVID-19 vaccines fit all these levels quite well.
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] MeteorMarc|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sentrysapper|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] saltmeister|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]