In the article it clearly states: 'We designed YT’s AI to increase the time people spend online, because it leads to more ads'. They designed it to increase the time spent. It does not 'sound like' they designed it to 'recommend videos people might like', it clearly states 'time spent'. There is no room for speculation, unless you question the correctness of the author's statement.
Yes, and that's one side of the relationship. The other side is that YouTube provides a free platform for anyone to upload and watch videos, and it even suggests videos it thinks you might like. Everyone here benefits. I fail to see anything as nefarious as the term "addiction peddlers" and hard drug metaphors would imply. The problems described in the text sound like they're mostly caused by mental illness and/or lack of personal restraint, both of which are and should be outside of the scope of YouTube to solve (unless we want to start accept third parties robbing individuals of agency "for their own good").
'We designed YT’s AI to increase the time people spend online, because it leads to more ads'
Would you treat your friends like that ? Say, a friend asks you to recommend them a good video on software development. Are you going to optimize your recommendation as to make them take the longest time possible to achieve their goal ?
>Are you going to optimize your recommendation as to make them take the longest time possible to achieve their goal ?
No, I'd link them to relevant videos that helped me in the past, and then maybe link them some more later on to help them further increase their skills after learning the basics. These hypothetical videos were interesting and helpful to me, and I figure that since I found them interesting maybe my friend will too. That's what it sounds like YouTube is doing, only they get money.
You can design for more than one thing, especially when complimentary. Why is there no room to speculate that they also designed for what people want? Why do I have to question the author's correctness to do so? Why mix all these words like this and tell other people what they can or can't speculate about?
Because the commenter did not add to the author's statement, but offered a different view on how YT's AI was designed. This particular comment section comments on the article, it is not a general discussion on YT's algorithm. Therefore if the author of the article, who is also one of the authors of the AI in question, writes a very clear statement on how the AI was designed, and the commenter then writes that it sounds like the AI is designed differently, then how can that mean anything else but questioning the correctness of the author's statement.
