That's actually really interesting about all ads being public like that! Didn't know that. Is it because of some regulatory requirement or just because it's useful business wise?
(anyway many of the coca cola ads you linked have some theme of togetherness and community, which can be said to prey on people's insecurities around being lonely. Drink this sugar+caffeine solution and you'll be less lonely. Yes you start to sound like a paranoid schizophrenic when analyzing ads like that but that is how it works.)
By and large most people don't see any problem with marketing, they will actually get a little bit mad at the suggestion it should be abolished, evidently it fulfills some kind of need for them.
All these kinds of questions you're asking come from a specific way of looking at things that is just not how most normal people look at the world. I'm not saying this out of misanthropy or some kind of wake-up-sheeple attitude, I'm also not saying you're wrong, but when you get knee-deep into critiqueing every aspect of how the world works at some point your worldview divorces from the worldview of most people to the point that "how do they all sleep at night" becomes kind of a moot question.
My Theory: Advertising is a lot like capitalism itself.
Both ads and capitalism are messy and have some externalized harms, but are better than the alternatives.
In the "advertising led" model of customer discovery, businesses advertise to essentially tell the market that they exist and provide a service. They do so by paying for advertising space across various mediums. This includes everything from their store signage to Craigslist ads, to TV and sophisticated digital advertising.
Most modern advertising is an auction where businesses compete to serve their message to customers the algorithms think are most likely to be interested.
This function - of matching users that might be interested in products to businesses providing products - is at this point hugely scaled.
People who want to ban ads will usually give the alternative of a reviewed directory of products and services for each category. That, they say, would be the ideal method of product discovery, along with word of mouth.
However, that runs immediately into the same problem that communism has historically. Who actually controls these directories, which would be a huge source of power for society? I posit that that it is impossible to centralize this effectively, and that the most likely most effective method for idea and product dispersal is something close to modern marketing and advertising.
>People who want to ban ads will usually give the alternative of a reviewed directory of products and services for each category.
I don't know about this. The idea that it should be centrally reviewed and managed is somewhat of a strawman as far as I'm concerned. Once you outlaw third-party advertising you would naturally expect such directories to spring up (much like specialized business publications that are actually full of high-value ads that genuinely serve a purpose for people in the business) but they could operate just like normal businesses with in the capitalist system and would have to compete for quality and customers.
How will the directories get their names out and compete if they're not allowed to promote themselves?
If you remove approved commercial options for promoting yourself, like advertisements, then most of the other options left for promotion are essentially spam.
If your answer is word of mouth, that's naïve. I've worked with over 100 startups at very various stages of marketing in the last 15 years. Word of mouth is fire in a pan. It is very industry dependent, context dependent, and company dependent.
I don't know man. I just think somehow we'll manage. For example if a group of friends all feel a desperate need to find out about new products they could start a non-profit organization that will search out the new products and directories detective style. And public business directories exist in most places because they are required by law.
The deeper point is that pro-advertising people always frame it like advertising is something people want and that benefits them, but this is just a fig-leaf for the underlying ideology that businesses have the fundamental right to buy peoples' attention for money. The directories idea is mostly just a way to call this bluff, essentially saying "if people wanted to be advertised to they'd go out of their way to get it". Then the underlying ideology comes out.
It's not that businesses have a fundamental right to buy people's attention. It's that people have a right to sell ad space that they own to other people to show messages on if they want to. I dont think its right to tell (example fake website) plumbersupport.com that they cant accept $500 from a plumbing saas product to put a banner ad on their site because advertising is bad.
This kind of situation is win-win-win.
The plumbing website makes money from the ad - supporting their operations so plumbers can keep a good source of plumbing educational content.
The SaaS company gets to put their product in front of users to look at and consider buying.
The users get to see a potential product with no obligation that they may have not ever heard of before.
So basically you're saying businesses have a right to sell peoples' attention. Of course for every seller there's a buyer but I do kinda see that how this framing would make a difference, ethically, for some.
idk about tobacco but the vast majority of normal people see no great problem with industrially produced food. By my reckoning if you say at a party you work for Unilever or something the most you'll get is an "oh that's cool I guess".
People are not (yet) aware what has been making everyone fat, but ozempic is making it harder to ignore that ultraprocessed foods are the culprit. So hopefully this will change.
>Tsujigiri (辻斬り or 辻斬, literally "crossroads killing") is a Japanese term for a practice when a samurai, after receiving a new katana or developing a new fighting style or weapon, tests its effectiveness by attacking a human opponent, usually a random defenseless passer-by, in many cases during night time.
I know it's tragic but this sounds so absurd it just made me laugh. They were on some good shit.
It is a helpful pointer for people who might otherwise assume that a well-known argument by a famous philosopher is sound without checking too deeply. Straightforward refutations can be found on wikipedia or by thinking about it.
That just isn't true, there are no straightforward refutations of the Chinese Room that are widely accepted. Philosophers disagree about it. It's highly controversial and pretending that it's decided one way or another is not a helpful pointer for anyone.
>That just isn't true, there are no straightforward refutations of the Chinese Room that are widely accepted.
Yes there is, the systems reply is the obvious and correct answer. Philosophers that disagree are simply wrong. In the end what matters is what's true or false, not how many philosophers accept something. You can check for yourself by reading the argument, following its reasoning, and seeing that it is false; and reading the systems reply, following its reasoning, and seeing that it's true (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-room/#SystRepl). The case is similar to those mathematical or logical proofs for the existence of god, where obviously fallacious reasoning gets a pass because it confirms deeply held beliefs.
>Most of the discussion consists of attempts to refute it. "The overwhelming majority", notes Behavioral and Brain Sciences editor Stevan Harnad,[f] "still think that the Chinese Room Argument is dead wrong".[13] The sheer volume of the literature that has grown up around it inspired Pat Hayes to comment that the field of cognitive science ought to be redefined as "the ongoing research program of showing Searle's Chinese Room Argument to be false".[14]
What you are referring to is Searle assertion that "because the Chinese room concept, I conclude that every future human-made systems will be a Chinese room and will never be 'intelligent'".
I think it is an important nuance.
You have to be careful when saying "Searle Chinese room" is dead wrong: the Chinese room concept in itself is useful and not controversial, and it is possible that current LLM are "Chinese rooms", and therefore not 'intelligent'.
We could use the "Chinese room" term to denote a system that superficially mimicks human speech, but breaks down at some point and/or uses different mechanisms such that it doesn't result in consciousness. But I don't think that was the intent of the argument and it's not how the argument is generally understood in the literature, so it would just be confusing IMO.
(And you still seem to be implicitly accepting that the basic argument is valid, which would be wrong.)
> You can check for yourself by reading the argument, following its reasoning, and seeing that it is false; and reading the systems reply, following its reasoning, and seeing that it's true
You are being tedious. I obviously have done this and I disagree with you. Saying that X is logically true and Y is logically false is not a demonstration of those baseless assertions. This is not helpful, what you're saying isn't true, and what I'm saying is backed up by the wikipedia article. The bit you quote is simply stating that most literature about the Chinese Room is an attempt to refute it, which is obvious, because the people who are convinced see no need to publish saying so. The fact that people keep publishing means that they have not yet succeeded in refuting it.
Or I can simply say this: you've made a mistake in your logic. Actually, the Chinese Room argument is correct. Since you won't explicate your logic, neither will I.
Why does that matter for whether or not it is conscious? Many things I "know" I also know because someone told me.
>It does not have a process for understanding itself in its environment.
It has a process for understanding, namely outputting tokens by evaluating the neural network iteratively. It can apply this understanding to its environment insofar as the context window and weights include a model of this environment.
>It does not have any sensing organ that would allow it to detect conditions and come to a conclusion that it must be in such an environment.
It does have a sensing organ, namely the input into the context window. Possibly it even has closed-loop sensors by doing tool calls. The conclusion could be incorrect or inaccurate but that doesn't in itself prove there is no consciousness (Plato's cave etc..).
>It doesn't even "know" when it's done something if you don't tell it about what it just did.
It does know, it's in the context window.
>It doesn't have an awareness of the tool calls it can perform; again it has to be told and even then it gets it wrong sometimes.
Same as above, as long as it's in the context window it could have "awareness" of having done it.
>And it can't actually execute any of those tools.
It can execute tools by outputting certain tokens in the right environment.
>It still relies on you to pattern recognize that its output should be a "tool call" and then perform the execution yourself.
Tool calls are not dependent on the human chat user executing them, right? They can happen automatically through the surrounding software.
>The "model" of its environment that an LLM has is 100% a construct of what a human told it and there isn't any way for it to differentiate between that which is real and that which is fantasy.
Again why would the fact that a human told it mean it can't result in consciousness? Why would lack of ability to differentiate between real and fantasy mean it can't be conscious? On my view, it would then be conscious of the fantasy.
This kind of debate would be improved by not using the word "just". You cannot say AI is "just" X or Y. You can say that it is X or Y, but you still have to prove separately how and why this means it's not something else besides.
You are arguing from consequences, it's not a valid argument. "If we consider AIs to be conscious it would be a alarming, therefore they are not conscious".
You made that up. My full argument is above. I'll try again.
"We must not consider consciousness as all too important because what matters is human flourishing and human rights."
And some of
"Even if we suddenly all agree an LLM is conscious it wouldn't and shouldn't influence us very much"
While acknowledging that some people will change their lives, the way some people like myself won't eat octopus or apes because it is probably more like murdering a sentient creature.
And oh by the way you cannot murder a copyable individual anyway. Did you read Enders Game?
Thanks for the clarification, though "you made that up" is pretty strong. I still don't see how "we can't care so much or we'll enter some pretty alarming priority inversions" is anything but an argument from consequences.
>And oh by the way you cannot murder a copyable individual anyway.
I think for many people the concern is not so much about violating the desire to live that a conscious software entity might (or might not!) have, but about the subjective experience of suffering it might undergo.
reply