Is Google using your brain as you browse?
I just stumbled across a research paper published by a Google employee and a Microsoft employee entitled “A Case for Usage Tracking to Relate Digital Objects“. I have no idea who Elin Rønby Pedersen is but she’s published both on this and on Google’s much vaunted foray into organising your health data.
The paper highlights an interesting idea, potentially just as important to Future Google as Pagerank has been to Google so far. It’s not groundbreaking - you see it on, for example, Amazon. But it’s worth thinking about, applied to the whole web.
The idea is that related objects - and I use the term extremely loosely here - can be identified because you looked at them during a session of Internet browsing; you started with one, and your later browsing takes you to related objects - blog posts or news articles on the same or related subject; similar videos; etc. Your brain does the hard work of deciding what objects you’re looking for; average that with other similar datasets and Google has a pretty damn good idea of what objects on the web are related, no matter what format the object has (could be visual, textual, a flash game, a picture - they could all be related in some way that a machine has no way of ever being able to decipher the way a brain can) - the beauty of this is, the Google machine doesn’t HAVE to understand.
Evidently, there’s a lot of ‘noise’ in the data since people can be quite random when browsing, or visit an unrelated page, etc. The answer to noisy datasets is to aggregate more datasets and average them. Google definitely has access to a lot of data - just through google.com, but also the emails you send through Gmail, through content you share through Google Opensocial apps, by registering your IP each time you view their ads on any of the sites you visit, by monitoring the sites visited by anyone with a Google toolbar - etc.
This is more top-down “semantics”, and only a few companies have the capability of tracking all Internet users around the web; Google is fairly unique because it has so much share of search, email and ads (you could argue that the doubleclick merger approval really missed the significance of the move, with huge privacy and antitrust concerns going unnoticed). Two additional categories of players present themselves: your browser, and your OS. The OS could (controversially) monitor websites you visit. As could your browser. I see huge potential in Mozilla Weave - if, when I send it my web visit history data (at the moment i do that so it syncs my data between my computers), with my approval it processed the data (looking at what I did during my browsing sessions) and pooled it with that of others, it could infer relationship between objects and recommend it within a sidebar.
Related:
- The semantic elephant in the room - Google will settle the "top down vs. bottom up" debate for us
- The fundamental principle of semantifying data is that information becomes more easily found and understood by computers. Mix that with AI and you've got some very, very powerful, useful tools for information gathering, processing and decision making! So why is Google - the information lynchpin of the Internet, and thus, of modern society - not THE focus of attention in all this hubris about Web3.0? Here's why it should be: (...)...
- Google Friend Connect - part 2: The largest Social Network ever built
- Having originally assumed that the reason Facebook, Hi5 and LinkedIn (FHL), amongst others, were involved in the Google Friend Connect (GFC) service, I initially wanted to write this post to argue that this was the biggest strategic mistake of their lives. Turns out, Google is involving them whether they like it or not - using their APIs to let you pull in your friend data to your Google Friend Connect profile from your other social networks. In light of this, the point I’ll argue is therefore that not slamming the door on GFC’s scraping of their data would be a fatal mistake for FHL. Needless to say, deprived of their data, GFC loses all its value to users - so this is a zero-sum game. I argued yesterday that all FHL could possibly gain from this is more information about you as you browse around the web and use social features on various websites. That’s an interesting datapoint (which they may not even have access to because they’re unwilling participants in this scheme), but long term, being part of GFC means their sites will be abandoned as Google rolls out the biggest social network mankind has ever seen, building...
- Your thoughts are no longer private: scientists can already tell what you’ve seen just by scanning your brain
- I’ve never denied being a nerd. Just now, I was scanning down the Nature weekly, and saw this paper, by Kay et al. It’s just been published, and it describes how they’re using functional MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) - fMRI - to ‘read’ your brain as you see an image - and to decifer from your brain activity, what it was you just saw (by seeing how your brain categorises it)! Here’s the (gobsmacking) last line from the intro: Our results suggest that it may soon be possible to reconstruct a picture of a person’s visual experience from measurements of brain activity alone. Think through what that means. Your thoughts can be scanned. Further down this line of research, we will eventually get to a point where police could get accurate IdentiKit pictures of your assailant, by scanning you; great! But the government could scan your brain to see what you really think about certain religious or political symbols. Are you racist? A commie? A fascist? Do you not like your leader? The government could find out by scanning you. Advertisers (and politicians) could find out the exact effect a message has on a person - using this, they could...
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
Add New Comment
Thanks. Your comment is awaiting approval by a moderator.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Add New Comment
Trackbacks
(Trackback URL)