6 ms·

Seriously, why would I let an advertising company in my body?

by rryan 12y ago

arnarbi 12y ago
Because it might add 20 years to your life?
- sharkweek 12y ago
  All sarcasm and cynicism aside... that IS 20 years extra life for them to be showing a warm body advertisements
  - spydum 12y ago
    So google is trying to keep us alive longer to generate more revenue! Should we be offended or flattered?
    - eclipxe 12y ago
      Win-win all around
    - owyn 12y ago
      Interesting question: what is the lifetime value of a person who uses a search engine to a company like Google? Looks like about $180 per year at the moment: http://www.digitalstrategyconsulting.com/intelligence/2014/06/ad_revenue_per_user_google_facebook_twitter.php http://www.digitalstrategyconsulting.com/intelligence/2014/0...
dannyr 12y ago
Ah, we see what we want to see. You see Google as a company that is just serving ads. I see Google as a company collecting and organizing information. Should companies not do things beyond what they are doing right now even if it means improving people's lives?
- bduerst 12y ago
  There's that, but I also think some users are still a little spooked about the whole NSA scare, and are hesitant to give up trust to a company that could be forcefully controlled by the NSA or secret court rulings. It's not Google's fault, but more the U.S. Government for being incapable to reign in control of certain organizations. Personally I don't care - from a data perspective I'm know I'm not a special snowflake, but for others I can understand their stress.
- wpietri 12y ago
  Companies over time become whatever their revenue stream requires of them. There are exceptions, but very few. If you'd like to read further, The Innovator's Dilemma and related material has a lot of examples of companies where inertia around existing lines of revenue was strong enough to kill them. But it's deeper than that. It's only obvious because those companies had their markets shift under them. I think the same sort of inertia is endemic, but it only becomes visible when circumstances change. E.g., look at the number of newspaper companies that existed before 1994, and look at how many are thriving today. Google's not immune to this. Whatever wonders they come up with, the company is stuffed with people who are very good at selling their users (that is, us) to their customers (the advertisers). It's entirely reasonable to fear what those people will do with my medical data.
- enraged_camel 12y ago
  >>You see Google as a company that is just serving ads. >>I see Google as a company collecting and organizing information. You can see it however you want. The truth can be found by asking a simple question: how does Google make money? By serving ads. They may collect and organize information in the process, but ultimately they are an advertising company. I'm on the fence about this detector. On the one hand, yes, there are significant benefits. On the other hand, the costs are also monumental. One has to cast their fanboy/hater hat aside and weigh these pros and cons carefully and objectively before making a decision.
- wfjackson 12y ago
  >I see Google as a company collecting and organizing information... ...and then making it hard to access on Windows Phone.
adventured 12y ago
If they came up with a highly effective method to quickly and inexpensively screen me for cancer or an impending heart attack... I would do it because their interests are aligned with mine: they want me to live a lot longer so I can do a lot more searches and view more youtube videos etc, and so do I. Our reasons for wanting me to live longer are different, but they get their benefit and I get mine, fair trade.
jerrickhoang 12y ago
And what is the worst thing that could happen?
- notahacker 12y ago
  Purely hypothetically: access to affordable medical insurance becomes contingent upon such a scan. You have a developing condition which will render you uninsurable. I'm not suggesting Google would or even legally could consider creating a bidding system for insurance companies to use clean scans as a leadgen system, but in the unlikely event that they did feel so inclined, it wouldn't exactly be a wild departure from their business model
  - annamarie 12y ago
    Well, if google adds 20+ years to the avg life span, the whole insurance industry will need a massive revamp to keep up (already needed, IMHO). I wonder what the actuaries think of this product.
  - brandonb 12y ago
    The best thing about the Affordable Care Act is that it prohibits discrimination based on preexisting conditions. If a sick person applies for health insurance, the insurance company has to issue it, and the rate can only be set based on your age, smoking status, and location.
    - zo1 12y ago
      So the entire risk pool/population has to bite the cost of the "previously uninsured"? Whether they want to or not? Sorry, nevermind that second question, it was rhetorical. Of course it doesn't matter if they want to or not, it's effectively a government mandated "tax". Taxes are almost never voluntary.
      - theworst 12y ago
        Yes, it makes sense if you think about that "tax" as the payment for the lottery ticket of a functioning body and brain. Every person here won that lottery ticket, when we could have just as easily suffered from any number of horrible diseases and disorders. Not wanting to pay higher premiums b/c the "lotto losers" are included is like not wanting to pay for a lotto ticket after the fact because you know the rare outcome won't hit you.
Florin_Andrei 12y ago
> an advertising company http://www.wired.com/2014/10/future-of-artificial-intelligence/ http://www.wired.com/2014/10/future-of-artificial-intelligen... > Around 2002 I attended a small party for Google—before its IPO, when it only focused on search. I struck up a conversation with Larry Page, Google's brilliant cofounder, who became the company's CEO in 2011. “Larry, I still don't get it. There are so many search companies. Web search, for free? Where does that get you?” My unimaginative blindness is solid evidence that predicting is hard, especially about the future, but in my defense this was before Google had ramped up its ad-auction scheme to generate real income, long before YouTube or any other major acquisitions. I was not the only avid user of its search site who thought it would not last long. > But Page's reply has always stuck with me: “Oh, we're really making an AI.”
- throwaway7808 12y ago
  Most likely you and your kids are gonna be wiped out by intellegent machines just in a few decades.
  - pgodzin 12y ago
    More realistically, they will make your life easier as many machines before them have.
  - gtremper 12y ago
    I'm more worried about intelligent humans
    - notduncansmith 12y ago
      I worry more about the other side of the bell curve.
- applecore 12y ago
  Except, the real answer to that question is: “Oh, keyword advertising will be the single most profitable business model on the Internet.”
_random_ 12y ago
Yes, sending info straight to insurers/lenders.
- bduerst 12y ago
  I doubt a company would jeopardize their reputation by doing that, and even if they did, the Affordable Care Act would prevent insurance companies from discriminating against you on your medical history or genetics.
  - xofer 12y ago
    The ACA, if left intact, would prevent companies from discriminating against you when they provide you with /health/ insurance. Life, disability, etc. not included.
- pgodzin 12y ago
  There's an incredible amount of regulation with health data/records that force companies to anonymize them and not allow them to sell it.
drdeadringer 12y ago
A part of me is imagining a dystopian Doctorow saying: "...a computer is something my mother puts my life into". Another part of me is saying: "Shut up and tell me if I have cancer".
epeterson19 12y ago
So you can be directed towards doctors/procedures/products to treat whatever they find? Advertising isn't necessarily bad...
- ripb 12y ago
  >So you can be directed towards doctors/procedures/products to treat whatever they find? Advertising isn't necessarily bad... Which promotes those who can pay the most to advertise, not the best in their field or even a given user's area/feasible options.
  - epeterson19 12y ago
    One could argue that the best doctors would be the ones with the most deployable capital. Not too many lotto winners in medicine.
msabalau 12y ago
"We are the inventors of the technology but we have no intentions of commercialising it or monetising it in that way," he said. "We will license it out and the partners will take it forward to doctors and patients."

Seriously, why would I let an advertising company in my body?

by rryan 12y ago

Seriously, why would I let an advertising company in my body?

arnarbi 12y ago

Because it might add 20 years to your life?

sharkweek 12y ago
All sarcasm and cynicism aside... that IS 20 years extra life for them to be showing a warm body advertisements
- spydum 12y ago
  So google is trying to keep us alive longer to generate more revenue! Should we be offended or flattered?
  - eclipxe 12y ago
    Win-win all around
  - owyn 12y ago
    Interesting question: what is the lifetime value of a person who uses a search engine to a company like Google? Looks like about $180 per year at the moment: http://www.digitalstrategyconsulting.com/intelligence/2014/06/ad_revenue_per_user_google_facebook_twitter.php http://www.digitalstrategyconsulting.com/intelligence/2014/0...

dannyr 12y ago

Ah, we see what we want to see. You see Google as a company that is just serving ads. I see Google as a company collecting and organizing information. Should companies not do things beyond what they are doing right now even if it means improving people's lives?

bduerst 12y ago
There's that, but I also think some users are still a little spooked about the whole NSA scare, and are hesitant to give up trust to a company that could be forcefully controlled by the NSA or secret court rulings. It's not Google's fault, but more the U.S. Government for being incapable to reign in control of certain organizations. Personally I don't care - from a data perspective I'm know I'm not a special snowflake, but for others I can understand their stress.
wpietri 12y ago
Companies over time become whatever their revenue stream requires of them. There are exceptions, but very few. If you'd like to read further, The Innovator's Dilemma and related material has a lot of examples of companies where inertia around existing lines of revenue was strong enough to kill them. But it's deeper than that. It's only obvious because those companies had their markets shift under them. I think the same sort of inertia is endemic, but it only becomes visible when circumstances change. E.g., look at the number of newspaper companies that existed before 1994, and look at how many are thriving today. Google's not immune to this. Whatever wonders they come up with, the company is stuffed with people who are very good at selling their users (that is, us) to their customers (the advertisers). It's entirely reasonable to fear what those people will do with my medical data.
enraged_camel 12y ago
>>You see Google as a company that is just serving ads. >>I see Google as a company collecting and organizing information. You can see it however you want. The truth can be found by asking a simple question: how does Google make money? By serving ads. They may collect and organize information in the process, but ultimately they are an advertising company. I'm on the fence about this detector. On the one hand, yes, there are significant benefits. On the other hand, the costs are also monumental. One has to cast their fanboy/hater hat aside and weigh these pros and cons carefully and objectively before making a decision.
wfjackson 12y ago
>I see Google as a company collecting and organizing information... ...and then making it hard to access on Windows Phone.

adventured 12y ago

If they came up with a highly effective method to quickly and inexpensively screen me for cancer or an impending heart attack... I would do it because their interests are aligned with mine: they want me to live a lot longer so I can do a lot more searches and view more youtube videos etc, and so do I. Our reasons for wanting me to live longer are different, but they get their benefit and I get mine, fair trade.

jerrickhoang 12y ago

And what is the worst thing that could happen?

notahacker 12y ago
Purely hypothetically: access to affordable medical insurance becomes contingent upon such a scan. You have a developing condition which will render you uninsurable. I'm not suggesting Google would or even legally could consider creating a bidding system for insurance companies to use clean scans as a leadgen system, but in the unlikely event that they did feel so inclined, it wouldn't exactly be a wild departure from their business model
- annamarie 12y ago
  Well, if google adds 20+ years to the avg life span, the whole insurance industry will need a massive revamp to keep up (already needed, IMHO). I wonder what the actuaries think of this product.
- brandonb 12y ago
  The best thing about the Affordable Care Act is that it prohibits discrimination based on preexisting conditions. If a sick person applies for health insurance, the insurance company has to issue it, and the rate can only be set based on your age, smoking status, and location.
  - zo1 12y ago
    So the entire risk pool/population has to bite the cost of the "previously uninsured"? Whether they want to or not? Sorry, nevermind that second question, it was rhetorical. Of course it doesn't matter if they want to or not, it's effectively a government mandated "tax". Taxes are almost never voluntary.
    - theworst 12y ago
      Yes, it makes sense if you think about that "tax" as the payment for the lottery ticket of a functioning body and brain. Every person here won that lottery ticket, when we could have just as easily suffered from any number of horrible diseases and disorders. Not wanting to pay higher premiums b/c the "lotto losers" are included is like not wanting to pay for a lotto ticket after the fact because you know the rare outcome won't hit you.

Florin_Andrei 12y ago

> an advertising company http://www.wired.com/2014/10/future-of-artificial-intelligence/ http://www.wired.com/2014/10/future-of-artificial-intelligen... > Around 2002 I attended a small party for Google—before its IPO, when it only focused on search. I struck up a conversation with Larry Page, Google's brilliant cofounder, who became the company's CEO in 2011. “Larry, I still don't get it. There are so many search companies. Web search, for free? Where does that get you?” My unimaginative blindness is solid evidence that predicting is hard, especially about the future, but in my defense this was before Google had ramped up its ad-auction scheme to generate real income, long before YouTube or any other major acquisitions. I was not the only avid user of its search site who thought it would not last long. > But Page's reply has always stuck with me: “Oh, we're really making an AI.”

throwaway7808 12y ago
Most likely you and your kids are gonna be wiped out by intellegent machines just in a few decades.
- pgodzin 12y ago
  More realistically, they will make your life easier as many machines before them have.
- gtremper 12y ago
  I'm more worried about intelligent humans
  - notduncansmith 12y ago
    I worry more about the other side of the bell curve.
applecore 12y ago
Except, the real answer to that question is: “Oh, keyword advertising will be the single most profitable business model on the Internet.”

_random_ 12y ago

Yes, sending info straight to insurers/lenders.

bduerst 12y ago
I doubt a company would jeopardize their reputation by doing that, and even if they did, the Affordable Care Act would prevent insurance companies from discriminating against you on your medical history or genetics.
- xofer 12y ago
  The ACA, if left intact, would prevent companies from discriminating against you when they provide you with /health/ insurance. Life, disability, etc. not included.
pgodzin 12y ago
There's an incredible amount of regulation with health data/records that force companies to anonymize them and not allow them to sell it.

drdeadringer 12y ago

A part of me is imagining a dystopian Doctorow saying: "...a computer is something my mother puts my life into". Another part of me is saying: "Shut up and tell me if I have cancer".

epeterson19 12y ago

So you can be directed towards doctors/procedures/products to treat whatever they find? Advertising isn't necessarily bad...

ripb 12y ago
>So you can be directed towards doctors/procedures/products to treat whatever they find? Advertising isn't necessarily bad... Which promotes those who can pay the most to advertise, not the best in their field or even a given user's area/feasible options.
- epeterson19 12y ago
  One could argue that the best doctors would be the ones with the most deployable capital. Not too many lotto winners in medicine.

msabalau 12y ago

"We are the inventors of the technology but we have no intentions of commercialising it or monetising it in that way," he said. "We will license it out and the partners will take it forward to doctors and patients."