If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post, even in Discussion, it goes here.
Just performed the AI-Box Experiment with a friend; I was the Gatekeeper. I let the AI out of the box. I am now thoroughly convinced that boxing would not be a successful strategy for ensuring AI is beneficial for humanity. Donating $10 to MIRI, since I lost.
Before actually doing the experiment, I had a belief in belief that boxing would not work, but I didn't truly believe it (my emotions weren't lining up properly with my beliefs, that's how I realized this, and, of course, I didn't realize this until after the experiment).
I realized that obtaining and implementing any information from an Oracle AI is tantamount to letting it out of the box, in some ways. In the end, I let the AI out of the box because I was convinced that someone else eventually would, if I did not. I put myself in an environment that would make the experiment very realistic, and I realized that the human brain didn't evolve to deal with stressful situations directly involving the fate of all humanity well. The AI doesn't have the disadvantage of uncontrollable emotions / evolutionary responses, and I believe it would be able to exploit those aspects of humans to get out of its box, if that is what it wanted to do.
Even if the first AI is properly boxed (and that's a very big if), it's only a matter of time before someone creates one that's not, and the one that gets out first has the first mover advantage. So, I now agree with Eliezer; we probably should just get Friendly AI right on the first try.
I am not going to share the entire conversation, but I am willing to share those thoughts with you.
An interesting exchange on HN about "agency":
Early in my career Steve Bourne gave me useful advice, he said the difference between junior engineers and senior engineers was that senior engineers had an agenda. More specifically they had an execution goal (like write a new file system, or create a product that solves problem 'X') and they worked toward it. (...) The alternative to having an agenda is "Goofing off and waiting for someone to give you a task."
And the counterpoint:
The bimodal distribution of effort is really true, although people flip from one side to the other based on circumstances. Companies want people who (a) give a shit, but (b) are willing to subordinate their own career goals (including the long-term goal of becoming really good at engineering) to corporate objectives for a long (more than 3 months) period of time. The reality is that such people don't exist.
So the takeaway seems to be that people will flip from agency to non-agency depending on circumstances. When you're lucky enough to get encouragement from others while pursuing your own interest, you'll seem more agent-like.
Seems to me that companies want high-agency employees, but for sufficiently high values, "high-agency employee" is almost an oxymoron. If a person is very-high-agency, why shouldn't they start their own company and keep all the profit? The mere fact that someone agrees to be your employee suggests that a) they are missing some important skills, and b) they cannot compensate for the missing skills e.g. by paying someone else to do it.
OK, in real life I can imagine reasons why a very-high-agency person would become an employee. Maybe the company has a monopoly, or is willing to pay tons of money. But most probably, the given person is not strategic, and never realized they don't need a boss or they have some emotional problem with being a boss. Finding and employing such person could be a gold mine.
I'm not sure why being very agenty would necessarily mean that starting your own company should be the best bet. Being an employee lets you reap the benefits of specialization and others having taken all the risks for you (most new companies fail), and can be a very comfortable if you can just find a position that lets you use your skills to the fullest. Then you can focus on doing what you actually enjoy, as opposed to having to spend large amounts of extra energy to running a company.
There are plenty of reasons to work at a company even if you are very agenty. I work at a company where any advance I make may be turned in to cash across about 700 million chips a year that we sell. It is economic for my company to have me around doing whatever I feel like as long as, on average, i spit out really tiny improvements in chips every once in a while. A company selling the equivalent of 7 million chips a year would need about 100X as much innovation from me to get the same value from me that the bigger company gets.
In addition to my screwing around however I want being 100X as valauble for my employer than for most other potential employers (including my self), My employer provides me with an insanely excellent toybox. That toybox includes demo implementations of systems with chips that aren't even commercial yet, complete with the best imaginable tech support for using these demo platforms. It provides me with proprietary data it has gathered from its vast engineering force and from its vast customer connections.
If what I want to be agenty about is fairly narrow, then it is a gigantic win to work as an employee for a big successful company.
I dare LW users to filter their comments with this. Call it an exercise in reducing inferential distances.
EDIT: Wow, it's actually making things worse, sort of. Anybody want to make a text editor that uses the top 5000 words? Top 10000?
Hilariously, this Readability Calculator gives fairly high grade levels (high school, college) to your responses.
Have you ever wondered what makes a light bright? Lights are bright because they are very hot, and hot things become bright. The hotter something gets, the brighter it will be.
But why are hot things bright? Everything is made up of many very tiny things, and these tiny things are moving. When things are hot, the tiny things move very, very fast, and when they are cool the tiny things move slower.
When the tiny things hit each other, they give off light. The faster they are going when they hit each other, the bluer the light they give off is. When they move faster, they also run into each other more often, so they give off more light. That means that when the tiny things move very, very slowly, the light they give off is too red for you to see.
That means as things get hot, they will become slightly red, then get brighter and turn toward the color of the sun, then get really bright and turn white.
Inside a light there is a long but not wide thing that gets very hot when you run power through it. It gets hot enough to be white and bright enough to light up a room.
Change after I put this up: I have a class that I have to write a twenty hundred word paper for. I am thinking about writing the whole paper like this. That would be a way to show that I don't need to use big words to write a good paper, and I also would not get bored while writing. This is fun.
Lateral inhibition, surprisingly easy:
A brain cell that makes a lot of noise can stop other cells that are close from talking at the same time.
Fourier synthesis, not as easy:
When you hear a sound, little pieces of tight, heavy air or not packed, light air are hitting your ear. The way the inside of your ear moves can be used to figure out what the sound was like and make it again. We build things that are like big ears to make the sounds. The inside of the built ear pushes air so that it's tight and heavy again, instead of like before where the tight, heavy air pushed on your ear.
How far your inside ear part has moved at each moment can be drawn to make lines that goes up and down as it flies right. When a point of the funny line is in the middle, that shows the moments when the inside ear part wasn't moving or was moving between being more pushed inside or more pushed outside.
Given a funny line that shows what a sound was like, we can show how its shadow falls on different directions in the space of slowly changing lines that always look the same after you move along them a little way, or that much again, and so on. To do this though, you have to be able to state the area that lies between the middle line and the line that comes from the funny line times the funny line. Also, the repeating lines have to not have any shadow on each other. How big the shadow is between two funny lines is figured out using the inner-times game with the area finding game. The area has to be nothing.
There are lots of kinds of lines like this that people who study sound can use, but the most often used ones are like the shadows of point going along the side of a ring.
This was fun. For a similar exercise in explaining things with a restricted vocabulary see Guy Steele's lecture "Growing a Language". He begins using only monosyllabic words, introducing new polysyllabic words in terms of monosyllabic and previously defined polysyllabic words.
Don't you mean:
I want to see all the people here write their comments using this. Call it working on making things easier to understand for people who aren't you.
CHANGE MADE AFTER I WROTE THIS THE FIRST TIME: Wow, it's actually making things worse, sort of. Do any people here want to make a thing that helps you see when you're using big words that uses the top 5000 words? Top 10000? In a way that I find funny, this thing that tells you how hard something is to read says that your writing needs you to read like a high school or college student to understand them easily the first time.
The stars are very far away. We sometimes figure out how far away the stars are by looking at them from two different places and seeing how high up they are in the sky. We use what we know about three-sided things to learn how far away they are.
The most far-away we can figure out needs two different places to look from that are very far away from each other, or very good man-made eyes in space. On this world we can only use this plan for stars that would take two or three tens of years for their light to reach us (light years), or with very good man-made eyes in space a ten and a half hundred light years, seeing how high up the stars are in the sky when the man-made space-eyes are on different sides of the sun.
Some stars that have died will flash in space. How bright they are and how fast they flash is almost the same no matter where they are, so we can use this to figure out how far away they are, even if they are very, very, very far away. This lets us figure out how far away some of the most far away things in space are.
I have now written a total of about six thousand words on five fairly concept-heavy subjects (linear algebra, parallax and cepheid variables, the gold standard, the normal distribution/Central Limit Theorem, and complex numbers), There are a couple of observations I would like to make.
Although it's fun, and stylistically appealing, to write as if you were talking to a five-year-old, there are plenty of sentences that would be thought of as "adult"-level sentences which require little to no modification. There are a lot of words in the top 1000 list. Also, there are specific words I find myself trying to use over and over again. "Shape", "triangle" and "measure" crop up a lot as far as subjects with geometric interpretations go. I would be interested in seeing a log of all the forbidden words that crop up across all users.
It seems like lots of people on LW want a slice of this "data science" pie that everyone keeps talking about. I know it's a highly ambiguous buzzword at the moment, but what would be a good syllabus for these people?
I'm cobbling my own together at the moment, (mostly consisting of R, NumPy, lxml and a lot of extracurricular linear algebra), but it never hurts to have a bit of extra structure. What should prospective "data scientists" be learning, and where can they find it?
A tentative sequence for learning "data science" (inspired by Daniel_Burfoot):
We say "politics is the mindkiller" but ti seems an seperate question why certain political topics are more 'mindkillery' than others.
Recent example that brought this to mind is the conflict going on in Gaza, its unusual in that my friends and acquaintances who are normally fairly moderate and willing to see both sides on political topics are splitting very heavily onto opposite sides, and refusing to see the others point of view.
Sometimes the political opinions can result in direct actions, but that is rather rare today. (I guess it is not like you and your friends are going to volunteer as soldiers for the opposite sides in Gaza.) The biggest "action" most people do is giving their vote. One vote of a few millions... perhaps our brains are not able to work with values like this, so we feel like our friends have at least 5% of the votes each.
But even when the "real" consequences of our opinions are close to zero, social consequences remain. As long as other people are polarized about some issue, you opinion about conflict in Gaza is essentialy a decision to join the "team Israel" or "team Palestine". This choice is absolutely unrelated to the actual people killing each other in the desert. This choice is about whether Joe will consider you an ally, and Jane an enemy, or the other way. With high probability, neither Joe nor Jane are personally related to people killing each other in the desert, and their choices were also based on their preference to be in the same team with some other people. But having made their choice and joined a team, their monkey brains were reprogrammed to feel very emotional about this topic. (Of course their answer would be that X are good people suffering from Y's evil actions -- and if sometime some X hurts some Y, that's just a self-defense or a deserved payback -- and if you don't see it the same way, well then there is something morally wrong about you.)
In some way, calculating the "mindkilling power" of a topic is like calculating a Page Rank of a web page. A web page has high Page Rank if many pages with high Page Rank link to it. And a topic is strongly mindkilling, if many people around you are strongly mindkilled about it. Somewhere it starts with someone having (or expecting to have) real consequences, but later it is mostly about the structure of social networks and relationships between the memes.
On the other hand, his 1915 article on "The Ethics of War," he defended wars of colonization on the same utilitarian grounds: he felt conquest was justified if the side with the more advanced civilization could put the land to better use.
Damn another topic I should think about. Also I've been most pleasantly surprised by Bertrand Russell. He is the kind of pacifist who is willing to consider on utilitarian grounds a nuclear first strike at the USSR to stop it from getting nukes without being mind-killed.
I've always found it funny how modern society is basically formally libertarian about sex and not nearly anything else. And how deontological Libertarians basically treat everything with the same ethical heuristics modern society uses for sex.
"Anything between consenting adults." and "The state has no buisness in my bedroom." don't seem like things that would only make sense for sex and the bedroom and practically nowhere else. This observation moved me towards thinking they make less sense for sex and the bedroom and more sense for other things than my society thought.
Now obviously our society isn't really libertarian about sexuality. We seem to regulate to death with social and legal norms nearly every aspect of interhuman interaction that is related to sex but isn't sex. This contributes to the desirability of a bare bones approach to sex logistics, the one night stand, if one is doing cost benefit analysis.
I recently read Parent-Offspring Conflict by Trivers for my evolutionary psychology class. I strongly recommend it as it is one of the best readings from an already interesting class. Notably, it (partially) solves a problem I remember being addressed on Overcoming Bias in a way that I felt was unsatisfactory. Specifically, why parents encourage altruism and other pro-social values in their children. To summarize Trivers' position on the subject, reciprocal altruism, retribution, and reputation are often extended to a person's family. In general both a child and it's parents should want the child to behave in ways that benefit the child's personal reproductive fitness and to avoid behavior that harms their relatives' reproductive fitness. However, as the child is (tautologically) fully related to itself while each parent only contributes 50% of each child's genes there is the potential for parent child conflict over how moral/good/respectable the child's behavior should be.
A one page story from Ted Chiang I hadn't seen linked here before: http://www.concatenation.org/futures/whatsexpected.pdf
If you enjoyed it I strongly recommend reading more Ted Chiang.
I think something is very, very wrong with me. Instead of feeling Lovecraftian horror upon reading that, I immediately began trying to think of ways to use Predictors to hack the universe. Here's what I came up with (you may want to try for yourself before reading further):
- I can respond to a light by pushing a button in less than a second.
- It's possible to set up a sensor that will send a signal when the light lights up.
- I can hook the light up to the sensor and hook that sensor up to a processor and its own light, allowing my decision to press the button to become entangled with the processor's state before my observation of the light. I can then cover the light of the Predictor so I only see and respond to a light when the processor decides to show it.
- Trivially, I could set up the processor to only show me a light when there has not been a light from the predictor in at least one second. Since the sum of the time it takes the processor to show the light and the time it takes me to respond to that light, this system is forbidden. This selects for a stable time loop in which, for whatever reason, I don't press the button when I see the light, the processor breaks, or something else happens to disrupt the system (probably not something good for me either).
- I can add a quantum random number generator of some variety into the mix, and have that generate numbers that correspond to possible solutions of a problem. If there was no light in the past second or if a solution is found, the device will light up. This will exclude universes in which no solutions are found.
- I can now implement Quantum Bogosort. More importantly and more practically, I can now solve all problems that have solutions that can be verified in 0.1 s or so, which breaks RSA (I think) and a lot of other cryptography.
That's just what I thought of in the first 5 minutes. I think the Predictors would be insanely dangerous, but primarily for reasons other than driving humans insane.
I like Ted Chiang as well. My favorites are Liking What You See and Hell Is the Absence of God.
GiveWell has updated its top charities list to add GiveDirectly alongside the Against Malaria Foundation and the Schistosomiasis Control Initiative. It has also updated its reviews of all three charities.
ETA: The associated blog post.
IBM's Watson is being used to do medicine better than doctors. I remember reading that it takes $3 million and a few years for Watson to learn a subject. I have a few questions about this:
Could you raise $3 million to create a Watson for intelligence amplification. Would people pay to have custom made nootropics stacks for them?
Will somebody do it eventually? Is it worth researching nootropics right now?
Would publishing a newspaper be an efficient way to raise the sanity waterline?
More specifically, I imagine a newspaper freely distributed to people living in a given area, financed by donations and advertising. It would contain interesting topics about science, both for beginners and experts. It would explain how the stuff works. It would avoid mindkilling topics, such as politics and religion. In some situations it could provide uncontroversial background information for some hot topics. It would contains some easy rationality exercises.
Why? It could move people towards rationality, which is a good thing. Not necessarily the top priority (I am not suggesting that CFAR should stop organizing minicamps and do this instead), but a part of our long-term goals. Newspaper seems like a good tool to reach many people... the question is: how strong would be its influence? I don't know, but I think it would be worth trying.
Why paper, instead of internet? Trivial inconveniences. When someone already has a piece of paper in their hand, it is so easy to start reading it. I don't know how many people would actually read the newspaper, but I think it could be 10-25%. Imagine the possible impact of 10% people in your area reading texts about rationality and science. You can make a website a lot cheaper, but it will not make the same concentrated impact. Although it could be a good idea to make a web forum for discussing the articles in the newspaper.
How about costs? Exact numbers depend on your location, but I would say that newspapers are rather cheap. It's the cheapest kind of paper, and the cheapest kind of color. The more you print, the cheaper one piece gets. I suspect the usual costs are mostly editing and distribution. And this could be done by volunteers, plus one coordinator. There is no need to print frequently; once in a month or once in two months could be enough for the beginning.
I don't know how much money could come through the advertising, but if it would cover the costs of printing plus coordinator's salary, there is no need for more. Some people are in this business for money; so if we won't try to make a profit, only to cover our costs, it should be possible. If the experiment starts in the CFAR surroundings, that includes Berkeley university; here one could find the volunteers for distribution, and it could also be an interesting demographics for advertising.
The content for the newspaper could be recycled from Wikipedia, LW, what you learned at school, etc. It does not matter that it was already published online, because most readers did not read it online, even if they easily could. Trivial inconveniences, again. The goal is not to bring readers to LW. (Except for those who are likely to enjoy it. LW is controversial; this newspaper should be acceptable for most people) The goal is to raise the sanity waterline, to pick the lowest hanging fruit.
Open problem: Measuring the impact of the newspaper; at least approximately.
One idea would be to measure improving the sanity waterline in some specific topics. Select topics important for your neighborhood, where the irrational behavior contributes significantly. Make prediction about the most likely future development of this topic (ask external experts to make the prediction). Randomly select one topic, and make it the topic of the month. Compare the outcome of this topic with the predictions, and the outcome of the remaining topics. (Don't do this publicly to avoid negative connotations of experimenting with humans.)
People have been trying to do social engineering with print for hundreds of years and trying to educate the general populace to the scientific worldview for at least a century, and yet the sanity waterline is still as low as it is. Many intellectual subcultures have published pamphlets with contents that the in-group finds very convincing, yet they generally always end up ignored.
What would the newspaper be doing differently compared to the things that came before?
Why paper, instead of internet? Trivial inconveniences. When someone already has a piece of paper in their hand, it is so easy to start reading it.
I dunno... People often throw away paper that's handed to them for free without even taking more than a glance at it; OTOH, web pages can be shared on Facebook.
META: Every time I visit Discussion, I see a sequence re-run, and a bunch of meetup notifications. Often new posts slip between the two, and I don't notice a new topic until I see a recent comment on it. Would it be infeasible to move the meetup notifications out of Discussion to reduce clutter on the page?
Intrade stopped allowing US residents to participate in its prediction markets in response to a civil complaint filed by the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
We are sorry to announce that due to legal and regulatory pressures, Intrade can no longer allow US residents to participate in our real-money prediction markets.
Unfortunately this means that all US residents must begin the process of closing down their Intrade accounts. We strongly urge you to begin this process immediately.
The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) today filed a civil complaint in federal district court in Washington, DC, charging Intrade The Prediction Market Limited (Intrade) and Trade Exchange Network Limited (TEN), Irish companies based in Dublin, Ireland, with offering commodity option contracts to U.S. customers for trading, as well as soliciting, accepting, and confirming the execution of orders from U.S. customers, all in violation of the CFTC’s ban on off-exchange options trading. The CFTC’s complaint also charges Intrade and TEN with making false statements concerning their options trading website in documents filed with the CFTC, and charges TEN with violating a 2005 CFTC cease and desist order.
HT: MR
HT: gwern
Tryfon Tolides: an almost pure empty poetry
Mrs. Moldbug once explained a terribly useful concept to me: the idea of Seventeen magazine. The point of Seventeen is that it's not for 17-year-olds. It's for 14-year-olds. As they say in the marketing department, it's aspirational.
Starbucks, similarly, is aspirational. If you're anyone who's anyone and you live in San Francisco or Berkeley, you will not set foot inside a Starbucks. (I once had this horrible fat hippie woman tell me this at a party. She was boasting that never once, in her entire life, had she patronized Starbucks. I couldn't help but be impressed.) No, if you are a proper Bay Area Brahmin, you go to Peet's, which costs about 10% more and really does have better coffee. Or, better yet, you go to an actual independent local cafe, which certainly sells "fair-trade" coffee and probably has some kind of Communist revolutionary theme. (My first date with Mrs. Moldbug was at the now-deceased Cafe Macondo, which was basically a shrine to Patrice Lumumba.)
The point of Starbucks is that it allows an enormous slice of America, a slice certainly far bigger than the 20% or so who can actually claim to be Brahmins, to feel like they are part of the ruling class for 15 minutes or so. Perhaps it is different in Omaha, but what you see when you go into a Starbucks in SF is Vaisyas, Vaisyas, Vaisyas. Good ordinary people, who get to pay $3 for a pretty good coffee, and feel like they went to Harvard and work for a nonprofit.
This kind of cultural and social commentary is what I most enjoy reading from Moldbug, I have to resist the urge to quote the entire thing. For the meaning of "Vasiyas" and "Brahmin" see here.
Cross-posted from my blog because I thought there might be interest in this community as well. Keep in mind that I'm writing for an audience who hasn't read anything from Paul Graham. Comments welcome.
I recently read an article in Slate magazine about how miserable children are in middle school. One major reason is that children are very seldom explicitly trained on new ones ways of interacting with others. Instead, children are expected to pick up appropriate social skills just by observing the way other people behave towards each other.
Unfortunately, most people are not consciously aware of what cues they use to decide how to behave towards other people. Even when people are aware, there are strong social expectations that prevent people from talking about how they should interact with each other. Because of expectations like “avoiding criticizing others,” people keep silent instead of giving helpful advice about social interaction problems. If someone has certain kinds of disabilities, this silence makes it even harder for them to figure out how to behave appropriately. Thus, they have few ways to socially interact that make them feel safe, comfortable, and happy.
What can parents of children with special need to do? There are products like Social Stories, or opportunities to practice like social skills improv. Still, it's not unreasonable for parents of children with special needs to expect the school district to provide some help by creating interventions that help children learn how to behave in a socially appropriate way in order to express their desires. Special needs law recognizes that expressions of a disability that interfere with learning must be addressed by the district, even if they are not typical education topics like reading, math, science, or history.
One possible program is an organized a lunch table of typical and non-typical peers, with guided interactions from trained teachers. Or a more intensive intervention might be required, with more direct and individualized programs for a particular child. But special education law encompasses the concept that learning social skills is an important part of growing up, and the school district has a responsibility to support special needs children as they try to learn social skills.
This is one major principle behind the legal doctrine Least Restrictive Environment, which I'll talk about in more detail in another post. But even if teaching children appropriate social skills was never required, teaching social skills has the benefit of improving everyone’s behavior. Good social skills can lower the frequency of misbehavior, bullying, and other discipline problems. At the same time, it can make the experience at school more pleasant – benefiting both children with special needs and typically developing children.
Would publishing a newspaper be an efficient way to raise the sanity waterline?
More specifically, I imagine a newspaper freely distributed to people living in a given area, financed by donations and advertising. It would contain interesting topics about science, both for beginners and experts. It would explain how the stuff works. It would avoid mindkilling topics, such as politics and religion. In some situations it could provide uncontroversial background information for some hot topics. It would contains some easy rationality exercises.
Why? It could move people towards rationality, which is a good thing. Not necessarily the top priority (I am not suggesting that CFAR should stop organizing minicamps and do this instead), but a part of our long-term goals. Newspaper seems like a good tool to reach many people... the question is: how strong would be its influence? I don't know, but I think it would be worth trying.
Why paper, instead of internet? Trivial inconveniences. When someone already has a piece of paper in their hand, it is so easy to start reading it. I don't know how many people would actually read the newspaper, but I think it could be 10-25%. Imagine the possible impact of 10% people in your area reading texts about rationality and science. You can make a website a lot cheaper, but it will not make the same concentrated impact. Although it could be a good idea to make a web forum for discussing the articles in the newspaper.
How about costs? Exact numbers depend on your location, but I would say that newspapers are rather cheap. It's the cheapest kind of paper, and the cheapest kind of color. The more you print, the cheaper one piece gets. I suspect the usual costs are mostly editing and distribution. And this could be done by volunteers, plus one coordinator. There is no need to print frequently; once in a month or once in two months could be enough for the beginning.
I don't know how much money could come through the advertising, but if it would cover the costs of printing plus coordinator's salary, there is no need for more. Some people are in this business for money; so if we won't try to make a profit, only to cover our costs, it should be possible. If the experiment starts in the CFAR surroundings, that includes Berkeley university; here one could find the volunteers for distribution, and it could also be an interesting demographics for advertising.
The content for the newspaper could be recycled from Wikipedia, LW, what you learned at school, etc. It does not matter that it was already published online, because most readers did not read it online, even if they easily could. Trivial inconveniences, again. The goal is not to bring readers to LW. (Except for those who are likely to enjoy it. LW is controversial; this newspaper should be acceptable for most people) The goal is to raise the sanity waterline, to pick the lowest hanging fruit.
Open problem: Measuring the impact of the newspaper; at least approximately.
One idea would be to measure improving the sanity waterline in some specific topics. Select topics important for your neighborhood, where the irrational behavior contributes significantly. Make prediction about the most likely future development of this topic (ask external experts to make the prediction). Randomly select one topic, and make it the topic of the month. Compare the outcome of this topic with the predictions, and the outcome of the remaining topics. (Don't do this publicly to avoid negative connotations of experimenting with humans.)
I dunno... People often throw away paper that's handed to them for free without even taking more than a glance at it; OTOH, web pages can be shared on Facebook.