This does indeed seem comically evil. While surely this may provide somewhat interesting insights in how our brain processes things, this seems squarely past the "should" part of "you scientists were so obsessed with whether you could you failed to consider whether you should"
And I have yet to see a single paper like this where a researcher bails out and publicly says they refuse to work on such projects. Not one.
The most benign interpretation of this observation is that science is filled with spineless opportunists who don’t care who they hurt with what they create. A slightly less benign interpretation might be that many of these people are doing this deliberately, and getting off on the sense of power it gives them.
I was asked to train a neural network do detect how much pain a mouse was in- our partner company would be responsible for hurting and filming the mice. I refused and subsequently quit- this produced no paper and I don’t know if they got someone else to do it. I probably should have done something stronger.
When skip level bosses on my last job wanted to do boneheaded things in automotive design they usually had to keep asking different engineers until they got a yay.
When it is pushed from the top it is hard to stop at ground level.
In their defence, don't shoot the messenger. Just because they published it doesn't mean that others haven't already discovered it. Better to know its possible than be completely ignorant.
> Just because they published it doesn't mean that others haven't already discovered it.
That’s irrelevant for the moral evaluation. Everyone is responsible for their own actions. If you choose not to kill anyone it won’t stop others from killing. But the fact that this is so doesn’t give you a license to kill.
I'd say we're already well past that point. Short-form "content" already exists and is messing with people's brains, this is the same thing just taken a few steps further. By the time the tech companies start using it, it will already be too late and we'll be left discussing whether the next man-made nightmare they come up with is the point where the tech industry must be stopped.
The problem is the incentive structure. We could be doing good things with tech. The incentive is to use it to addict and destroy. Addiction and war is where all the money is, not education or health care or positive forms of entertainment and art. No money in those. Why?
I’m sure there was an early hominid version of this discourse. “Maybe bad to make sharp rock and sharp stick if this what we do with it…” “Mmm yes someday we make sharp rock big enough smash world.”
Advertisements actually run the world. Imagine a world without ads. The economy would grind to a halt. It is exploitation and manipulation, but that enables creation of large capital, which leads to great things. In the past it was pyramids and temples, and in modern times it is space exploration, scientific research and other things that require huge capital. Even the current advances in AI/LLMs are made possible by mass exploitation.
Without ads and exploitation of the masses, none of these would not be possible.
Slavery (or getting poorer people to do the work for you) is the central concept of civilization. It cannot be done without it. It's not capital or advertising that makes all this work, it's forcing the poor to work and pay tax that makes the world go round d
Even if that is true, what you are saying is, essentially, that the ads-driven exploitative economy is a very expensive innovation engine.
It is then useful to ask: if innovation is what we want, do there exist engines that aren't quite as expensive?
If the market economy has more of a human face than outright slavery, there's no reason to believe that it's impossible to do better: a Copernican position would say that we'd be no more likely to be correct than an ancient Egyptian who claims it's impossible to do better than state slavery.
The pyramids were not built by slaves, and while we can waffle around about "all labor is exploitative to some extent", it doesn't take exploitation-maxxing to drive great achievements. Most great modern achievements are driven by a desire for self-actualization or recognition, not survival.
This reads like the mental hoops someone who works for or invests into Meta comes up with to resolve their cognitive dissonance.
You might as well have said that without advertising, we wouldn't have charities, freedom of thought, and literature: the argument is as strong and might make you feel even better about yourself.
Oh, turns out that you did say that advertising solved slavery in another comment. Carry on, mate.
Please tell me how ads help science research or why should I care about space exploration or LLMs that threaten me and hundreds of thousands of other peoples jobs?
Can’t tell if this is satirical or serious. Those ancient wonders were enabled by slave labor, treating people as “capital” is the ultimate climax of capitalism.
