John Foreman’s article about data surveillance and machine learning as a means of gaining information about consumers took a unique approach to a topic in which we have previously discussed in depth. I personally really liked the article and the approach hat Foreman took, and his perspective on the issue.
When he started out with the example of the Disney World tracking device, it seemed as if he was trying to ease in to his argument with a somewhat funny and more lighthearted example. However, it divulges into one of his main points of corporations using data for profit. When Disney can track the different time and places that people do activities, it allows them to use this data to best attempt to maximize their profit and work to the needs of the consumers.
I also really liked how he differentiated between businesses using and NSA using personal data, and how he argued that we should prefer the NSA’s use, as he views the NSA of giving citizens more credit than the businesses. This was an interesting perspective, as the NSA spying my seem less obtrusive than simply tracking shopping habits at first glance.
Overall, I believe that extreme use of machine learning will begin to threaten humanities creativity. Speaking for myself, I am a creature of habit. I tend to frequent the same restaurants, vacation spots, and am a very routine oriented person. Will machine learning tracking everyone habits to the T, it will even lower the probability that people will branch out and push their creative boundaries. Although this can be very useful for company market campaigns, I believe that humanity must continue to evolve in a natural way.
http://www.corporate-eye.com/main/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/target.jpg
mawatters
I think Kurt brings up an interesting point in saying that humanity must continue to develop in a natural way. My biggest two questions are, “What constitutes as natural?” and “Does that definition remain constant over time?”. If you could travel back and time, and show something as commonplace as an Iphone to somebody from the 1920s, they would not view that as natural in any way, shape, or form. Because of that, I would argue that the definition of natural changes based on the personal experience of the individual making the claim. Therefore, at any single point in time, saying that we should develop in a natural manner could be potentially be a dangerous statement.
I think the most important question to ask in this situation is whether the benefits to society of an omnipotent presence of big data in marketing and business exceed the costs. Clearly, as Kurt mentioned, there is potential for businesses to utilize big data in a profitable way. However, does it necessarily make human beings less creative?
As a parallel example, should we refuse to adopt labor-saving technologies because they put people out of jobs? Specifically, take a look at the fast food industry. If it is cheaper to implement a machine that takes your order and payment for you than it is to pay a human employee to do the same thing, should we object to this change on the grounds that it is socially optimal for the human employee to keep his job? I think the argument can be made, only if it is assumed that he has no other alternatives, he can either work at this restaurant, or not (And even then, the argument to be made still is not particularly strong). However, in reality, this just means that he will find another job where his skills are needed, improving the economy as a whole. I think this example ties back in to the big data example, because individuals have the potential to utilize the services that provide the data (such as Iphone apps) to streamline their lives, making them more efficient, and ultimately giving them more free time, which could potentially enhance their creativity, instead of impede it.
I do think it is worth noting though, that an important assumption in the above argument is that the acquisition of information is relatively symmetric (i.e., when you sign the terms and liabilities agreement, you can see what sort of data you are providing). Going back to what we discussed in class earlier, asymmetric information can definitely be a trap. In that case, businesses could use that information to potentially prevent individuals from fully realizing what information they have available to them, which could ultimately be problematic. There is clearly a lot of grey area between the state of society today, and whether or not data collection and access is symmetric or asymmetric. However, I would argue that all in all, machine learning and data analytics ultimately does more good than harm to our society.