Advertising is, by nature, diametrically opposite to rational thought. Advertising stimulates emotional reptilian response. I advance the hypothesis that exposure to more advertising has negative effects on people’s receptivity to and affinity with rational/utilitarian modes of thinking.
So far, the most effective tool to boost popular support for SIAI and existential risk reduction has been science-fiction books and movies. Hollywood can markedly influence cultural attitudes, on a large scale, with just a few million dollars… and it’s profitable. Like advertising, they often just pander to reptilian and emotional response… but even then they can also educate and convince.
What most people know of and believe about AI and existential risk is what they learned from Steven Spielberg, Oliver Stone, Isaac Asimov, etc. If Spielberg is a LW reader (maybe he lurks?), I am much more optimistic for mankind than if ads run on Craigslist.
If you want people to support the right kind of research, I advance that it could be most effectively and humanely accomplished using the Direct Belief Transfer System that is storytelling.
Who wants to write The Great Bayesian Novel? And the screenplay?
I think you’re lumping television and brand advertising together with targeted shopping advertising. TV and brand advertising works by bombarding a suggestion into your mind so you think of it at a later date.
With these Craigslist ads, the more likely scenario is that when you search for “toasters” you’ll see ads for where to buy a toaster right now. Ads like that are outright useful and are no inherent insult to rationality. I don’t think there is anything irrational about clicking on an ad that conveniently happens to be exactly what you want at that moment.
I don’t dispute that most ads inspire irrationality, but I still don’t follow the argument that because ads encourage rationality, we should not follow through with this project to raise a billion dollars for charity, especially rational charities.
I don’t think this is going to save mankind. I proposed this as a project that would rid the entire Less Wrong community of any empathic self-loathing as a result of buying lattes instead of saving lives in developing countries and to that end I think it will work rather well.
Having said that, I think you raised an important objection that Craig and Jim could raise: that there is something inherently bad about advertisements and it goes against Craigslist’s mission as a public service. They’d have to make the case that their feelings about advertisements outweigh the wishes of the users. Or maybe it’s just that we’d want to frame it so that was the case they’d have to make.
Through hearing about the product from neutral third parties.
If I want to buy a computer I can read objective reviews that tell me about the pros and cons of different computers.
How does the “neutral third party” get information about the product? Surely not through the actual producer of the product or service! Why, that would be advertising!
I think that you are reading the word advertising as more general than it was intended. Craigslist is full of ads, in a narrower sense than you are talking about. And yet it doesn’t have advertising in the problematic sense.
Advertising is, by nature, diametrically opposite to rational thought. Advertising stimulates emotional reptilian response. I advance the hypothesis that exposure to more advertising has negative effects on people’s receptivity to and affinity with rational/utilitarian modes of thinking.
So far, the most effective tool to boost popular support for SIAI and existential risk reduction has been science-fiction books and movies. Hollywood can markedly influence cultural attitudes, on a large scale, with just a few million dollars… and it’s profitable. Like advertising, they often just pander to reptilian and emotional response… but even then they can also educate and convince.
What most people know of and believe about AI and existential risk is what they learned from Steven Spielberg, Oliver Stone, Isaac Asimov, etc. If Spielberg is a LW reader (maybe he lurks?), I am much more optimistic for mankind than if ads run on Craigslist.
If you want people to support the right kind of research, I advance that it could be most effectively and humanely accomplished using the Direct Belief Transfer System that is storytelling.
Who wants to write The Great Bayesian Novel? And the screenplay?
I think you’re lumping television and brand advertising together with targeted shopping advertising. TV and brand advertising works by bombarding a suggestion into your mind so you think of it at a later date.
With these Craigslist ads, the more likely scenario is that when you search for “toasters” you’ll see ads for where to buy a toaster right now. Ads like that are outright useful and are no inherent insult to rationality. I don’t think there is anything irrational about clicking on an ad that conveniently happens to be exactly what you want at that moment.
I don’t dispute that most ads inspire irrationality, but I still don’t follow the argument that because ads encourage rationality, we should not follow through with this project to raise a billion dollars for charity, especially rational charities.
I don’t think this is going to save mankind. I proposed this as a project that would rid the entire Less Wrong community of any empathic self-loathing as a result of buying lattes instead of saving lives in developing countries and to that end I think it will work rather well.
Having said that, I think you raised an important objection that Craig and Jim could raise: that there is something inherently bad about advertisements and it goes against Craigslist’s mission as a public service. They’d have to make the case that their feelings about advertisements outweigh the wishes of the users. Or maybe it’s just that we’d want to frame it so that was the case they’d have to make.
So, how would anyone ever find out about a new product or service without advertising?
Through hearing about the product from neutral third parties. If I want to buy a computer I can read objective reviews that tell me about the pros and cons of different computers.
How does the “neutral third party” get information about the product? Surely not through the actual producer of the product or service! Why, that would be advertising!
I think that you are reading the word advertising as more general than it was intended. Craigslist is full of ads, in a narrower sense than you are talking about. And yet it doesn’t have advertising in the problematic sense.