I want to write a short story (I know, I know, I'll get to it... someday!) that begins with the protagonist saying "OK Google, get me a girlfriend" and follows as Google's suggestions "prods" him to go to bars and events where he ends up meeting a girl, etc, etc.
When I'm at a client's site we to go to an Italian restaurant across the street regularly. My Google Maps started suggesting other Italian places "because you like Italian.".
Cool gag. Predictably, the links are nonsensical. It further shows how no one algorithm will outpace all algorithms, i.e. no one thought to rule all thoughts.
Is anyone working on a network of networks such that there's a quorum of context/routing networks that pass input to the most appropriate network (or networks) for the scenario and blend the outputs in some meaningful way?
The article amounts to little more than subversion in normal speech under surveillance, it's not as if Google can't read and make at least some limited sense of most of things you do or say during your interactions with it. You can point gaping holes in that behavior but the fact is that Google has you by the balls in terms of the data it's collecting on you and as time passes it will get better at making sense of lots of it, even if you can subvert it easily enough. Maybe it's hinting that going forward the cognoscenti should exercise this sort of subversive speech to confuse the AI.
Machines thinking for humans was one of the hypotheses in Yuval Noah Harari's book Homo Deus, he calls it dataism. To me it seems to be a recipe for how can corporations can wrestle control of thinking from human beings to render them into mere drones. This seems to be on the agenda of the Silicon Valley elites as they have seemingly adopted him as their pet historian/philosopher. May you live in interesting times.
I have been thinking about this and it seems that it could work but I don't see how it could work considering that there is always a conflict of interest between what corporations want and what an individual or a business wants. So in a world where you have agents that belong to you and are required by law as through fiduciary duty to follow your interests it's possible for such agents to exist. But it will never work if Google or Facebook owns these agents or the data on which the agents make their decisions without transparency.
> This seems to be on the agenda of the Silicon Valley elites as they have seemingly adopted him as their pet historian/philosopher. May you live in interesting times.
not sure it’s explicitly an “agenda”, but does seem like a likely outcome if current trends continue i suppose...
as an aside, the whole “think for you” is quite different than the “original” ideal of what got the whole thing started, that is: the augmentation of human intellect [1], not the replacement of...
Like this ad https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnsSUqgkDwU but with the people not realizing that Google's suggestions lead them to their life situation.
When I'm at a client's site we to go to an Italian restaurant across the street regularly. My Google Maps started suggesting other Italian places "because you like Italian.".