Bruce Schneier thinks we can look at the future of AI by looking back at the path that "social" media has followed to get to its current state. Here's his post.

In his long and thoughtful posts, he addresses five topics:

• Advertising
• Surveillance
• Virality (as in "going viral")
• Lock-in (of your data/data about you)
• Monopolization (or monetization)

I think it a worthwhile read.

Update:

ntubski caught something I missed. Schneier is quoting an article, with attribution, that was written by Nathan Sanders.

Great read.

Not written by Schneier though:

Nice catch, ntubski. Thanks.

Schneier often uses his "bully pulpit" to promote articles written by other people. And, just as in this case, he faithfully cites them. He knows that he owns "a very important pulpit."

In all of this, I am also reminded of the classic program, "ELIZA." Equivalent source-code to this 1964-1967 program is still available, and its impact is still compelling.

But also: I can't help but notice the comment that "many advertisers cut off hundreds of millions, and said that it had no impact on their sales."

I say this from the perspective of someone who has never participated, at all, in "social media." Even though I have by now contributed tens-of-thousands(!) of posts to forums such as these. I have never regretted that decision.

I would therefore argue that these "mega-company's" "mega($$)-evaluations" of their "impossibly-vast" 'valuation,'" just might come to an unpleasant and disastrous "comeuppance." Just exactly how much of this "eyeball-saturation" has been synthesized?

Over the course of many experienced decades, "advertisers" basically understood how their markets worked.

"And then, (suddenly!) (miraculously!) ... everything changed!" Or, did it?