I think they tried to address those concerns in the article. They did mention that they understand that people block ads for security. And they do say the following:
"You can simply add WIRED.com to your ad blocker’s whitelist, so you view ads. When you do, we will keep the ads as “polite” as we can, and you will only see standard display advertising."
"You can subscribe to a brand-new Ad-Free version of WIRED.com. For $1 a week, you will get complete access to our content, with no display advertising or ad tracking."
So they are saying that you will only see standard display advertising, and no advertising or tracking if you subscribe. Of course, the question then becomes one of, "Do I trust WIRED?" As for myself, I don't trust them -- I don't really trust anyone these days; not if they're in the business of selling me something, that is.
That's too bad. I sometimes like to read Wired articles, but I'm not going to open up my devices to malware just to read yet another so-so article that's been vomited on to their website simply to get me to click on ads. There will be twenty other sources telling the same bullshit story. And even if all of them block me too, that's okay, because whatever the story is, it's probably not that important anyway.
The machines have already taken over, even without AI. This is because everyone instantly believes what a machine tells them, no matter what. Look at people who have had their identity stolen. A machine says they took out a loan here, and a loan there. Now the creditor is demanding payment. The victim can't convince the creditor that they did not take out the loan because the machine says they did, and the machine is never wrong. Despite the fact that there is no physical evidence that any loan was ever granted to the victim, the machine is believed over the human. No one ever questions how the data got into the machine. No one ever assumes that any mistake was made at any time. Whatever the machine says is assumed to be the truth.
Recently, a friend related this story. He was at a checkout line at Target, and had purchased about $60 worth of items. He handed the clerk a $100 bill. The clerk mistakenly keyed in an extra zero, and the machine dutifully informed the clerk to make change of about $940. The clerk, without hesitation, started to do this and my friend had to stop her and explain her mistake. The clerk couldn't understand. They eventually had to call a manager over to explain the problem. This girl was prepared to do whatever the machine told her, despite the fact that it didn't make any sense.
We don't need AI for the machines to rule over us.
Well, I thought I had been following the space program pretty closely all these years. I was a little kid in the 60's so I got to watch the early space program develop in real time. But I had never heard of these experiements until today. A few years ago, when the Indians crashed their probe into the moon, I thought, "What an interesting experiment. I wonder why we never thought of that." Turns out, we did think of that. Of course, the two experiments differed in what they were looking for, but they were alike in that someone said, "Hey, let's crash something into the moon in order to learn something more about it."
There is a difference between giving away your wealth and using your wealth to manipulate. Zuckerberg says that his goal is, “advancing human potential and promoting equality,” That's sounds suspitiously like manipulation, not almsgiving. It's just another way to use wealth to project, and even build, power. It might be a kindler and gentler way of doing it, but that's what it is.
At any rate, the Zuckerbergs are very vague so far about what, precisely, they plan to do, so I suppose there is a chance that they will prove me wrong.
Ads are not the only problem with TV. The programming has become pretty ridiculous. Reality TV, especially, is extremely stupid. The only reality TV I used to watch were cooking shows, but I think by now everyone understands that they are not "real", that even the time clocks and whatnot are all BS. A friend, who used to like to watch ghost-hunter shows and Finding Bigfoot, complained last weekend, "They never find any ghosts. They never find Bigfoot. God! I've been wasting my time!" So, bad programming combined with too many commercials is just unbearable. I recently got rid of digital cable and went to bare-bones service. I don't miss it at all, and I'm saving $75 a month.
" It doesn't even touch on issues like sexism..."
The very first moments of the film open with the statement that there are fewer female CEOs than there are male CEOs named John. The film literally starts with a divisive claim of sexism. The film is an insult to the many female coders I have known in my 30 years of experience.
If the algorithm isn't any better than Google's filter bubble for Google News, it will be completely laughable.
The reason Johnny (and Jenny) can't code is simple: coding is not easy. Most kids hate math word problems. Yet, that's what coding is. You're given a math word problem with all these variables and facts and rules, and you have to come up with a solution, that is translated into a foreign language of simple instructions for a very dumb machine that is fussy about how you talk to it. If you can't stand problems that start out, "A train leaves Chicago traveling 42 miles per hour...", then you are not ever going to like coding, and you most likely will never be very good at it.
Um, yeah. So, you know that humanitarian project we hired you for? Well, the corporation scratched that project, sooooo, I'm going to ask you to go ahead and move over to the team that's working on our Death Gel, okay? Thanks.
Yes, I have had those situations. That is why I check the departures immediately upon landing. That way I know exactly where and when my connecting flight is leaving without depending on some unreliable app. There was a time when people lived normal, healthy, successful lives without smart phones. No, I can't imagine being so dependent on some little electronic doodad that I can't get myself from one city to another without it. Of course I've had the benefit of survival training in the military, so you could blindfold me and drop me off almost anywhere and I'm pretty confident that I could survive for at least three days; even longer if I have a decent pocket knife; and probably make my way back to civilization if I had to, so my point of view is probably skewed a bit because of that.
I get that it's a problem if the phone joins an old pay wifi network. However, I don't understand why you would miss your flight. I mean, you're at the airport, presumeably you know where you're going and when the flight is. There are monitors all over the place showing departure times and gates. You'd have to be pretty oblivious to miss your flight. I have never missed a flight in my lilfe, and for most of my life, there were no cell phones or wifi networks involved in getting on the airplane.
I want to apologize first for probably being too cynical, but I have to say this.
Applying Occam's Razor to the question:
Which of the two scenarios are more likely?
A. There is water on Mars.
B. There is a government agency, that a lot of people work for, who need money from a Congress that is in the middle of a budget battle, who have concocted a publicity stunt in order to justify their continued existence.
I do like that about