The Social Dilemma

unenlightened

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Social_Dilemma

https://amp.cinemablend.com/news/2555346/what-is-the-social-dilemma-things-to-know-about-the-netflix-documentary-before-you-watch?fbclid=IwAR2v-yWqLZji4F2tKmhZpzppt1Z1EQHK5zYS0Gn3gGdPx4ysCnoOATfelXM

As the links above will tell you, "The Social Dilemma" is a docu-drama hybrid that might be worth a bit of discussion. If you are familiar with my posting history, you will know that I am a bit down on the way psychology based on science tends towards manipulation and supports an advertising industry whose sales technique centres on producing in viewers anxiety, dissatisfaction, fear, and unhappiness, and proposing the solution as Dr Fouls special hair growth formula, or a new f-phone, or whatever.

Fans of 'The Century of the Self' will find this good introduction to the century of AI. The thesis being, in very brief, that the big data machines of google, facebook etc are running thousands of micro experiments in advertising manipulation, and gathering huge amounts of data on individuals. The result is very high levels of addiction and every user being manipulated by AI's that no one completely understands or controls because they are intelligent learning systems designed maximise clicks swipes, looks, purchases, votes, whatever and use data that users are unaware of unconscious cues like time spent looking at every image.

The programme connects all of this in the first instance with big rises in self-harm, depression, body dysmorphia, depression and suicide amongst children. It also suggests that this phenomenon is something akin to the dreaded 'singularity' - not that the machines are already smarter than us, but they can already manipulate us more than we can manipulate them through our human weaknesses and unconscious irrationality.

Watch it on Netflix, or read all about it, and see what you think.

Srap Tasmaner

↪unenlightened

I will absolutely be watching! Thanks for the tip.

I assume you've seen Douglas Rushkoff's The Merchants of Cool -- if not, highly recommended.

Kenosha Kid

If you are familiar with my posting history, you will know that I am a bit down on the way psychology based on science tends towards manipulation and supports an advertising industry whose sales technique centres on producing in viewers anxiety, dissatisfaction, fear, and unhappiness, and proposing the solution as Dr Fouls special hair growth formula, or a new f-phone, or whatever. — unenlightened

But it doesn't, does it? Corporations do this, and often before the science is understood. For instance, McDonald's knew that billboard advertising increased footfall before psychologists understood food cues which, in its academic context, aims to tackle the health crisis of convenience foods. Seems wrong to blame the science for how it is abused or seeks to offset pre-existing abuse by psychopathic corporations. Like blaming van manufacturers for paedophilia.

ChatteringMonkey

Just watched it.

Manipulation is not exactly a new thing, religions used it, politician use it, parents use it... heck even this documentary about manipulation had fitting music in the background so as to illicit some kind of emotional response.

What is new though, is the scale and sophistication of the manipulation, that truly is unprecedented. What's even more scary is that the whole AI revolution is only in its infancy at this moment.

My first reaction was to regulate it or to even pull it out of the market as some utility company so that the profit incentive would go away. But then again, can we really trust government or any group of humans for that matter with this much power? I think that is the problem, it's just to much potential power.

Therefor I'm tempted to agree with the lady at the end, just outlaw this kind of large scale data-gathering on humans. I could live with less sophisticated algorithms. Of course chances of this happening are rather slim because we live in a world with competing countries, and not under one world government, which makes regulating and enforcing this kind of thing traditionally very difficult... especially if a lot can be gained with it.

So... I'm not optimistic.

Changeling

Adam Curtis's new documentary 'What Is It That Is Coming?' should be coming soon as well, according to his wikipedia page

praxis

Jamalrob has done a terrific job of addicting me to this site. I hope his financial reward is great.

Janus

↪unenlightened

The increase in early and late teen mental illness, depression and suicide is disturbing. On a general level, if social media and the news filter bubbles it creates, sustains and amplifies lead to social and political polarization and erosion of any possibility of collective will then that is even more disturbing.

Given the momentum of the tech behemoth, and the converging resource and environmental problems, it's becoming increasingly difficult to be optimistic about the future of our civilization.

unenlightened

Seems wrong to blame the science for how it is abused — Kenosha Kid

I do make that argument elsewhere, but I'd rather discuss the program here. The down and dirty précis is thus: science is objective; the science of psychology treats the individual as an object of study; when you study individuals as objects you only learn how to manipulate them. There are psychologies that begin elsewhere, by treating people as equal participants in the relationship... they are 'unscientific'.

But then again, can we really trust government or any group of humans for that matter with this much power? I think that is the problem, it's just to much potential power. — ChatteringMonkey

It's not even a question. We are driving our children insane. Or rather the machines we have invented are doing so at our command.

'

Jamalrob has done a terrific job of addicting me to this site. — praxis

No he hasn't.

I'm sorry but your remark trivialises something rather important. Jamal collects no data, though google certainly does. Jamal does not present a different site tailored to each individual and designed to work on their particular insecurities. Jamal probably spends money rather than makes money from the voluntary contributions to the site's running costs. And this is important. There is no need for things to be as they are This site and wikipedia and others demonstrate that we can arrange things in other ways than by allowing greedy manipulators to run ~~things~~ people. The machines do not care... they will do whatever we tell them to do.

Kenosha Kid

when you study individuals as objects you only learn how to manipulate them — unenlightened

Well that's just wrong. Like saying the Galileo only learned to manipulate balls.

ChatteringMonkey

It's not even a question. We are driving our children insane. Or rather the machines we have invented are doing so at our command. — unenlightened

I think the more general problem is that the goals of something that has that much influence and power over us are determined merely by profit incentives.

TheMadFool

↪unenlightened

Where is evolution in all this? In my humble opinion, evolution is the real mastermind behind all this manipulation - social media being merely the tip of of the gigantic iceberg of devices evolution has put into service to make sure that we keep clicking the metaphorical mouse button of pleasure...forever and more.

praxis

↪unenlightened

The spike in teen suicide is disturbing but I haven’t seen enough evidence to be convinced that it’s due to social media. There was a spike around the nineties, for instance, that was comparable. Are there any theories to account for that spike?

Satisfying corporate greed at the expense of consumer well-being, and the science of persuasion, is hardly anything new. Just look at something as mundane and ubiquitous as high fructose corn syrup. It costs less than other sweeteners to produce and improves shelf life, which increases profits for the producers, but the impact it has on the health of consumers must be staggering.

Regarding political divisiveness, some theorize that Trumps success is owed to his Hitler style rallies. Hitler managed to polarize pretty good without the help of online social media. Sorry if I invoke Godwin prematurely.

unenlightened

↪praxis

There are certainly some spaces between the dots being joined up. And certainly tech is not the fount of all evil. There is some evidence, but not that much afaik, that connects a rise in body dysmorphia amongst the young with photoshopped images on social media. That the ability to change your image on line leads to an increased dissatisfaction with the reality. It make sense intuitively as well.

Satisfying corporate greed at the expense of consumer well-being, and the science of persuasion, is hardly anything new. — praxis

That's why I flag this as a successor to the Century of Self series that narrates the rise of consumer society, and the influence of psychology. Nazi propaganda is of course part of that story. AI controlled social media adds another layer to the high rise shit-pile of modern history.

unenlightened

Where is evolution in all this? — TheMadFool

Nowhere at all. That's another topic entirely.

I think the more general problem is that the goals of something that has that much influence and power over us is determined merely by profit incentives. — ChatteringMonkey

Yes, and it doesn't have to be that way. We seem to be stuck between private capitalism and state capitalism, each scaremongering about the other, as if they are somehow fundamentally different.

praxis

AI controlled social media adds another layer to the high rise shit-pile of modern history. — unenlightened

I’ve never been into Facebook, Twitter, instagram, and the like, but I’ve recently developed a habit of using YouTube. The algorithms controlling what it serves up are obvious, and frankly, I wish they were better at serving my interests, but I’m sure that they’ll get smarter as the tech advances. Doubtful an algorithm can make a person narrow-minded, however, at this point. Whatever it is that makes a person want to live in an echo chamber is probably worth looking into.

unenlightened

Doubtful an algorithm can make a person narrow minded, however, at this point. — praxis

Hmm. That is of course what the AIs want you to think. :scream:
No, they can't make you, a particular individual, narrow minded. but they can attract your interest, intermittently reward you, keep your attention, and raise your anxiety level. And that 1% raise in anxiety level might just make you liable to be wee bit more narrow minded than you were. Overall, there is really no question that propaganda can massively impact public opinion, even though no one thinks they can be influenced by it. and that elections have been managed and consent manufactured.

One of the things that, for instance, the Trump campaign had from, ahem, Cambridge Analytica (deceased) is data on all sorts of citizens and voters that included good estimates of their personality on many dimensions, including some rather like narrow mindedness and influencability. So they would know in advance, for instance, whether to try and get you to vote for Trump, or just try to put you off voting against him, and target ads, news items, and so on accordingly. It wouldn't work every time, but enough of the time to change the election.

Changeling

The screen/user interface is the ouija board and the algorithms are the evil spirits controlling your hand and where it clicks.

praxis

↪unenlightened

No disagreement. I tend to think the best course of action is to put effort into developing a wiser society that’s not as open to manipulation rather than trying to regulate the tools of manipulation. At the risk of sounding paranoid, I imagine that the powers that be want an easily manipulated society and may scheme in some way to maintain it, so all the obstacles in that direction may not be apparent.

Btw, I’ve read about developing AI, or rather GAI, and understand that the potential threat is far far more substantial than any issues with current AI.

Gnomon

The thesis being, in very brief, that the big data machines of google, facebook etc are running thousands of micro experiments in advertising manipulation, and gathering huge amounts of data on individuals. — unenlightened

The Social Dilemma of social media stems from the fact that, as businesses, they are no longer primarily News media dealing in Facts, but Advertising venues dealing in Feelings. Back in 1957, journalist & social critic, Vance Packard reported on a disturbing trend in post-war American media. His book, The Hidden Persuaders, revealed some of the psychological manipulation techniques used by the Mad Men who made advertising such a lucrative field of enterprise. What made these mind tricks so effective was that they were "invisible" to most consumers.

Over the intervening years, Madison Avenue has perfected the art of Mind Control into a science. And their key tool is Emotional Priming, which by-passes the rational mind and stimulates the emotional centers. In effect, those who partake of modern media are exposing themselves to Mind Control by others who don't have their best interests at heart. These techniques have also made modern political advertising particularly vicious and polarizing, rather than enlightening. The result is that a majority of citizens, who do little critical thinking, are being turned into robots & zombies programmed by their media venue of Choice. :worry:

Invisible Persuaders : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vance_Packard

Invisible Manipulators : https://getpocket.com/explore/item/invisible-manipulators-of-your-mind?utm_source=pocket-newtab

Emotional Priming : https://medium.com/better-marketing/a-guide-on-the-psychology-of-priming-bbffc6f934d
https://neurofied.com/priming-power-tool-online-marketing/

Roy Davies

↪unenlightened

It is difficult to fight against the 'quick serotonin hit' of social media. Funnily enough, I've only just joined this forum, but I am finding it intensely rewarding, but then again I am a thinking engineer who is used to critical thought, so I guess I'm getting my serotonin hits here. I think critical thinking should be taught and practiced in schools. That would likely lead to a better society, in my opinion, but is a long term solution and begins with the teachers.

↪ChatteringMonkey

This could lead into an interesting debate on the value of capitalism and whether the trickle down effect actually works.

unenlightened

It is difficult to fight against the 'quick serotonin hit' of social media. Funnily enough, I've only just joined this forum, but I am finding it intensely rewarding, but then again I am a thinking engineer who is used to critical thought, so I guess I'm getting my serotonin hits here. — Roy Davies

As I already pointed out, this site is very unlike the social media being discussed, and more like Wikipedia. No personal data is collected, no profits are made, and the site is the same for everyone. No adverts of any kind and no scope for political or commercial exploitation. There's nothing wrong with a bit of serotonin (except I hate the biochemical way of talking about happiness). If you get pleasure from eating nourishing food, or from learning together in a social setting, that is completely different from eating junk food and being fed sensational fake news and 'likes'.

This site looks the same just as good food looks just like junk food.

ChatteringMonkey

This could lead into an interesting debate on the value of capitalism and whether the trickle down effect actually works. — Roy Davies

I'm not entirely sure what you are getting at specifically. But in general, I think markets are effective and efficient at producing some goods and services. That is valuable and I certainly wouldn't want to do away with that altogether. At the same time it seems obvious to me that this is not the only thing that is of value. So if capitalism would lead to every other value getting subordinated to profit motives then something is off it seems to me.

In this concrete case of social media, you could say google and facebook are good at producing some kind of service, but apparently they do so at the cost of other things we find important. Add to that that these kind of services seem to inherently tend towards forming monopolies, and it isn't clear anymore that free markets will remain all that effective in producing these services.

So it seems to me that we need some correction to the free market here. At minimum they need to be regulated properly, and possibly you need to split them up or even pull them out of the market altogether and set them up as some utility company because these kind of services have become so important in this day and age.

unenlightened

we need some correction to the free market here. — ChatteringMonkey

A regulated market therefore. Or possibly some other institution altogether - there are other ways to cooperate than markets.

Punshhh

Yuval Noah Hariri has written a good book on the issue.

21 Lessons for the 21st Century.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ar44DwAAQBAJ&pg=PT7&source=kp_read_button&redir_esc=y

Srap Tasmaner

↪unenlightened

Outstanding. Thanks for calling this to my attention.

I thought I knew what was going on and it's so much worse.

PulsarDK

I saw that movie a few times in the past months. And honestly I am so scared. For myself, my kids, my husband who is actually working with tech security. He has watched the movie with me twice and both times he saw it while typing and arguing that his use of online games, GPS and youtube isn't addictive. Like an addict. But last time he saw it I managed to pursuade him to put the computer down while watching and now he is slowly getting it though he keeps blaming me for things he can't use even though he made the decision himself. Is there a safe online environment for social media addicts somewhere online? One that doesn't get monitored by pursuasive technology.

The GPS problem might not seem like a big one but he used to be able to find hos way around easily and now he can get lost after two turns. He panics even. That's not him at all.

Great seeing how others are debating the documentary too. Finding posts like these have not been easy.

PulsarDK

I also watched How To Become A Tyrant and suddenly I realized that Zuckerberg might have other aspirations than becoming rich and powerful. He certainly provides the means for people with a tyrants aspiration of power to target voters and win elections. Even if the imperial hair cut isn't a sign in which way he wants to move with his persuasive technology he doesn't seem to have any problems helping others achieve their goals no matter what they want.

How To Become A Tyrant will be great for teaching by the way. I can't wait to use it.

TheMadFool

↪unenlightened

Wait, wait, blast me in the arm [...] or else they'll know. — General Hux

Netflix itself is a culprit!

I know, I know, conspiracy theory!

hope

↪unenlightened

The more "progressive" we try and make society the more primitive it will become.

Because we are primitive, and we are not in control.

unenlightened

we are not in control. — hope

If I could rephrase that to 'absolute control' or 'total control', then I would agree.
Control requires tolerance. Think of a bicycle - it's unstable the upright position, but can be controlled by moving forward and allowing a small deviation from the straight path to maintain balance. We can control the bike and go where we want approximately. In human relations, one does better not to try and control others too much. Society becomes primitive when the controllers get out of control; control requires restraint; moderators should be moderate.

hope

If I could rephrase that to 'absolute control' or 'total control', then I would agree. — unenlightened

You have enough control to find food. Which allows you to live a short while before you die. lol

The Social Dilemma

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions