> This might not be possible - there are many inputs into the model; it would be impossible to trace which one tipped the scale.

I am not a fan of problem-solving via legislation, but I wouldn't lose a lot of sleep if Big Tech was no longer allowed to burn billions of CPU cycles on making opaque, inexplicable guesses as to what ads are most likely to make them money if shoved in front of my eyeballs.

I get the annoyance, but also, targeted ads means both a more efficient economy and information environment.

Mass ads means more money goes into ads and ads are irrelevant to many people. Only big co’s can afford mass ads. Targeted ads means ad money is vastly more efficient, and your information environment is less cluttered. One-man shops can afford targeted ads.

I like seeing relevant ads. I like supporting small businesses targeting me. Privacy isn’t a concern either because the three-letter agencies can find out whatever they want about me if they want anyway.

FWIW, I’m not in advertising.

All the more reason for transparency if no one can explain how it works. Ideally "my model is too opaque" isn't an excuse, but an admission of negligence.

They'll simply say, its not 'listening' if an algorithm does it.

I love machine learning, data, and even targeted ads. But no marketing algorithm should have access to mic and camera data, period.

Fun tangent, I recently went to Rally's (a really hard to find burger joint around my parts). I rarely go so its always a treat with their shake/glorious fries.

Found they've completely replaced the order taker with a robot, with order signage saying "help train our robot".

No opt out, and you can't get to an employee unless it recognizes the word employee. Recording in progress.

The ADA non-compliant parts aside for people with voice related disabilities, its BS what companies are forcing people to do just to buy a burger. I'm not going back after that.