6 ms·

> “The best minds of my generation are thinking about how to make people click ads. That sucks.” I noticed this around the same time. It was 2010 and I was sti

> “The best minds of my generation are thinking about how to make people click ads. That sucks.” I noticed this around the same time. It was 2010 and I was still in grad school, my lab mate and I used to poke fun of what we called the "Twitter researchers", who were working on what we perceived to be very boring projects (i.e. figure out the optimal ranking of N articles on a page to maximize some objective function). They also didn't like the research, but Twitter/Facebook/Microsoft/Google was paying for their tuition and stipend, so they didn't have much of a choice. When the big grant funding agencies are funding projects at a rate of around 20% - 25%, if you're a researcher hurting for federal dollars then that big tech money looks really good. I can only imagine this dynamic being replicated at universities across the country, how many young minds are wasted on this pursuit. And for what? So Google can sell more ads and become even richer? So Facebook can suck all of your attention just to make you depressed and suffer from body dysmorphia and an eating disorder? I'm in the robotics field, and in our lab we used to draw a clear line that whatever we worked on would not have a direct military application, because we couldn't stand the thought of our work being used to kill people. Obviously the line is blurry (will my localization algorithm be used on a predator drone?), but there was always at least an eye toward ethical considerations in our research group. We always asked ourselves "How could this be used to hurt people?" It was in our culture, because our work had such obvious evil implications. Just watch pretty much any sci-fi movie ever, there was no shortage of ideas about how robotics research could go wrong. But there's not a lot of sci-fi source material on how page-ranking algorithms can destroy society. These "Twitter researchers" as I called them never really had a notion that their work could be used for evil purposes, and who could blame them? In 2010 it seemed so benign. But looking around at the state of social media, maybe there should have been more conversations early on about the ethical implications of the research they were doing.

Jesus_piece 5y ago
Agreed completely. Crazy to see this endless iteration on ad optimization and maximizing screen time has made disinformation, polarization, and conspiracy so common. Really destroying society from the bottom up IMO
- germandiago 5y ago
  Instead of whining it would be a good idea to make people aware of the stuff we care about and help them take better decisions. I have available weapons and drugs. zmI do not use either. I am convinced it is a bad decision except in probably very extreme conditions. We cannot be blaming others just for doing ads. No demand, no offer. Got it? Easy as that. We all like a world we do not have, we always find problems. But that is not a reason to say what is bad or good. The market will decide :D I do not get stressed at all with all these Betting houses (now fashionable in Spain) or drugs or anything: just need to be responsible.
  - arrosenberg 5y ago
    > We cannot be blaming others just for doing ads. We regulate gambling and tobacco for the same reason we should regulate this. Google and Facebook ads have been scientifically tuned to hijack your brain chemistry for money. This isn't blame, or whining, it's simply acknowledging that these companies weaponized visual stimulus and data collection to sell ads on the internet. No amount of personal responsibility is going to solve a human society level problem.
    - germandiago 5y ago
      I would like to see those reports. Are there any links? Not because I do not believe you, but because I am genuinely interested. That said... well, I still think that at the end, nothing can beat having good information. Close Facebook, Google and put ads blockers.
      - arrosenberg 5y ago
        What reports? A simple search will provide you with all the info you need on any of those topics. And again, the whole thrust of my argument is that telling people to close Facebook is the same as telling them to stop smoking. It's naïve and ignores the reality of brain chemistry and addiction.
golemiprague 5y ago
If you use the military to protect yourself why don't you want to sell them products to help them do their job? Are those people below you just because they do a job you don't want to do? Or do you think you don't need the military?
- adwn 5y ago
  You make a valid point. I understand why ModernMech doesn't want their work to be used to inflict harm on others, but at the same time, they're enjoying the freedom afforded by the military that protects them. The sad truth of our reality is that as long as there are people willing to inflict violence against us, we need people who can plausibly threaten to inflict violence in return. It is hypocritical to condemn your country's military in general, while depending on said military for protection. [1] [1] It isn't necessarily hypocritical to condemn certain militar actions or policies, though.
petra 5y ago
Ethically , are robotics a good idea ? Who knows. People do need good jobs, or even just jobs, and it doesn't seem more robots are going to help with that.
- bsenftner 5y ago
  Robots are a fantastic idea. It's the journalists telling society everyone will be out of work that is the source of society stress - that and the billionaires driving capitalism into the dirt while ignorantly driving the ignorant society they engineered for their benefit to a violent revolution that will destroy them and their children.
- ModernMech 5y ago
  Depends on the robot really. Robots that help the elderly manage their dementia and loneliness? Great. Robots that help wheelchair bound people navigate? Great. Robots that help clean up nuclear disasters? Great. What would not be great is if we just allow a handful of people to own all the robots in the world (and their output), just as we allow a handful of people to own all the capital producing equipment in the world. Then we're just where we are today, but even worse off. This is actually my nightmare, and partly why I don't do much robotics anymore these days... Remember, people only need jobs because we as a society have decided if they don't have jobs, we will allow them to go hungry and suffer exposure of the elements due to homelessness. This is perhaps necessary when there's so much work to be done you want people working instead of idle and comfortable. But if the robots can do all the work, then why do people need jobs? Only if the benefits of that work accrue to a handful of people rather that society as a whole.
  - germandiago 5y ago
    If robots are expensive at first, some people will have them first. This is a basic law of economy (scarcity). It is interesting about peoplr must havr jobs or not. If you do not provide value and someone has to pay those costs with their work, is that fair? Even if we have robots: who maintains them, manufacture, program the AI? You want tha some people work doing that and the rest enjoy a life as good as the ones who work hard and people who benefit from them just be privileged? Something does not match well here. You do your contribution and find a place in society. If your contribution is not great, I do not find a reason to be in exactlythe same position as others. Yes you have the right to live and so on. But do not expect a Ferrari at your door and a luxury life.
germandiago 5y ago
Unfortunately every thing has a bad use. Even the knife I am using to cut meat. That is not a reason to forbid it... Forbiding is not the way to go. The way to go is to make people aware of the dangers and implications of their choices and convince them why we should avoid damaging others. Empathy is key here: just do not do to others what you do not want for you seems to me like the most basic of the rules. Imposing a view of what others can or cannot do is absurd, harmful and also we can miss all the good things we can do with things that can also be misused.
- ModernMech 5y ago
  No one is talking about banning anything, at least I'm not. Yes, everything can be misused, which is why it's important to at least ask the questions about how and in what ways. When some technology can be so badly misused, more so than a knife, it's important to have a culture around the proper handling of that power. Take nuclear energy for example. Yes it can be used for great evil, but we should not ban research into nuclear energy because it can be used for good as well. Nonetheless, there are still grave ethical considerations that go into producing this research. The greater the ethical considerations, the more thoroughly we need to consider all the implications of this technology, good and bad, rather than "move fast and break things". Social media is one of those things. It doesn't present itself with the same raw force of nuclear power, but it has proven to have an undeniable power over the human mind. Despite the evidence we have now, though, it still seems that ethical considerations of social media are not being taken seriously enough by the people with the most power of social media platforms, and this worries me.
  - germandiago 5y ago
    > there are still grave ethical considerations that go into producing this research I would like to know which ones. If you do something to not harm, why do you have to be blamed because other misuse it? I do not think this is the right line of thinking if you mean that we should not do it just on the basis that "someone evil could misuse it". Of course, as an individual you can refuse to research if you think it can yield those results, but never blame it on a researcher that someone else misused their invention. Social media is a fight because there is an obsession for censorship from some interested parties, in part. That is why. I do not believe in those super powers as much in the sense that you can always stay away from it as much as you wish. It is a matter of self-discipline also, even if it is indeed a "powerful weapon".

Jesus_piece 5y ago

Agreed completely. Crazy to see this endless iteration on ad optimization and maximizing screen time has made disinformation, polarization, and conspiracy so common. Really destroying society from the bottom up IMO

germandiago 5y ago
Instead of whining it would be a good idea to make people aware of the stuff we care about and help them take better decisions. I have available weapons and drugs. zmI do not use either. I am convinced it is a bad decision except in probably very extreme conditions. We cannot be blaming others just for doing ads. No demand, no offer. Got it? Easy as that. We all like a world we do not have, we always find problems. But that is not a reason to say what is bad or good. The market will decide :D I do not get stressed at all with all these Betting houses (now fashionable in Spain) or drugs or anything: just need to be responsible.
- arrosenberg 5y ago
  > We cannot be blaming others just for doing ads. We regulate gambling and tobacco for the same reason we should regulate this. Google and Facebook ads have been scientifically tuned to hijack your brain chemistry for money. This isn't blame, or whining, it's simply acknowledging that these companies weaponized visual stimulus and data collection to sell ads on the internet. No amount of personal responsibility is going to solve a human society level problem.
  - germandiago 5y ago
    I would like to see those reports. Are there any links? Not because I do not believe you, but because I am genuinely interested. That said... well, I still think that at the end, nothing can beat having good information. Close Facebook, Google and put ads blockers.
    - arrosenberg 5y ago
      What reports? A simple search will provide you with all the info you need on any of those topics. And again, the whole thrust of my argument is that telling people to close Facebook is the same as telling them to stop smoking. It's naïve and ignores the reality of brain chemistry and addiction.

golemiprague 5y ago

If you use the military to protect yourself why don't you want to sell them products to help them do their job? Are those people below you just because they do a job you don't want to do? Or do you think you don't need the military?

adwn 5y ago
You make a valid point. I understand why ModernMech doesn't want their work to be used to inflict harm on others, but at the same time, they're enjoying the freedom afforded by the military that protects them. The sad truth of our reality is that as long as there are people willing to inflict violence against us, we need people who can plausibly threaten to inflict violence in return. It is hypocritical to condemn your country's military in general, while depending on said military for protection. [1] [1] It isn't necessarily hypocritical to condemn certain militar actions or policies, though.

petra 5y ago

Ethically , are robotics a good idea ? Who knows. People do need good jobs, or even just jobs, and it doesn't seem more robots are going to help with that.

bsenftner 5y ago
Robots are a fantastic idea. It's the journalists telling society everyone will be out of work that is the source of society stress - that and the billionaires driving capitalism into the dirt while ignorantly driving the ignorant society they engineered for their benefit to a violent revolution that will destroy them and their children.
ModernMech 5y ago
Depends on the robot really. Robots that help the elderly manage their dementia and loneliness? Great. Robots that help wheelchair bound people navigate? Great. Robots that help clean up nuclear disasters? Great. What would not be great is if we just allow a handful of people to own all the robots in the world (and their output), just as we allow a handful of people to own all the capital producing equipment in the world. Then we're just where we are today, but even worse off. This is actually my nightmare, and partly why I don't do much robotics anymore these days... Remember, people only need jobs because we as a society have decided if they don't have jobs, we will allow them to go hungry and suffer exposure of the elements due to homelessness. This is perhaps necessary when there's so much work to be done you want people working instead of idle and comfortable. But if the robots can do all the work, then why do people need jobs? Only if the benefits of that work accrue to a handful of people rather that society as a whole.
- germandiago 5y ago
  If robots are expensive at first, some people will have them first. This is a basic law of economy (scarcity). It is interesting about peoplr must havr jobs or not. If you do not provide value and someone has to pay those costs with their work, is that fair? Even if we have robots: who maintains them, manufacture, program the AI? You want tha some people work doing that and the rest enjoy a life as good as the ones who work hard and people who benefit from them just be privileged? Something does not match well here. You do your contribution and find a place in society. If your contribution is not great, I do not find a reason to be in exactlythe same position as others. Yes you have the right to live and so on. But do not expect a Ferrari at your door and a luxury life.

germandiago 5y ago

Unfortunately every thing has a bad use. Even the knife I am using to cut meat. That is not a reason to forbid it... Forbiding is not the way to go. The way to go is to make people aware of the dangers and implications of their choices and convince them why we should avoid damaging others. Empathy is key here: just do not do to others what you do not want for you seems to me like the most basic of the rules. Imposing a view of what others can or cannot do is absurd, harmful and also we can miss all the good things we can do with things that can also be misused.

ModernMech 5y ago
No one is talking about banning anything, at least I'm not. Yes, everything can be misused, which is why it's important to at least ask the questions about how and in what ways. When some technology can be so badly misused, more so than a knife, it's important to have a culture around the proper handling of that power. Take nuclear energy for example. Yes it can be used for great evil, but we should not ban research into nuclear energy because it can be used for good as well. Nonetheless, there are still grave ethical considerations that go into producing this research. The greater the ethical considerations, the more thoroughly we need to consider all the implications of this technology, good and bad, rather than "move fast and break things". Social media is one of those things. It doesn't present itself with the same raw force of nuclear power, but it has proven to have an undeniable power over the human mind. Despite the evidence we have now, though, it still seems that ethical considerations of social media are not being taken seriously enough by the people with the most power of social media platforms, and this worries me.
- germandiago 5y ago
  > there are still grave ethical considerations that go into producing this research I would like to know which ones. If you do something to not harm, why do you have to be blamed because other misuse it? I do not think this is the right line of thinking if you mean that we should not do it just on the basis that "someone evil could misuse it". Of course, as an individual you can refuse to research if you think it can yield those results, but never blame it on a researcher that someone else misused their invention. Social media is a fight because there is an obsession for censorship from some interested parties, in part. That is why. I do not believe in those super powers as much in the sense that you can always stay away from it as much as you wish. It is a matter of self-discipline also, even if it is indeed a "powerful weapon".