I've visited a few of the teams and I'd like to say that many of the things being published out of there (say the recent real time vision stuff with cars published by yann lecun's group) or perhaps the voice stuff coming out of baidu.
That being said: I think you're ignoring the structure of the data that are involved with click through rates and the like.
Reconstructing sparse data and reccommenders is among the hardest problems in AI. Couple that with the at scale unstructured data(being media like text, audio) being used and we can see some real landmark results.
Real value is being created alongside some of the commercial research being done.
As for use cases of deep learning outside of ads, my customers are working on many cool problems that don't involve targeting. I've done training as well as deployments with a variety of companies now. Media centric products coupled with users are among some of the coolest datasets out there. Let me say that search and similarity among data is by far the best application of this stuff outside of yet another conv net classifier.
There's a practical side to this stuff that doesn't involve ads. I hope that helps a bit.
Just have a look at the AIMA book (http://aima.cs.berkeley.edu/), it's full of applications not related to advertising (both of its authors, Russell and Norvig, have signed the letter). I'm going to implement many of them in my blog (http://ai-maker.com/), so if you want to have a lot of fun with AI, join me in this learning quest.
The idea that "some of the greatest minds of our generation are spending their time figuring out how to get people to click on more ads" is a bit of a myth. They're figuring out new algorithms, faster methods and new technological concepts that are being applied to ads first. The truth is that the research divisions of Google, Microsoft, IBM, etc publish a lot of research that isn't related to advertising at all, possibly the majority of what they publish. The best and brightest engineers are interested in engineering and theory, and despite working for advertising companies they tend to come up with good ideas that can be used in a wide variety of applications.
I believe a significant portion of the implementation effort is going toward more effectively delivering ads and consumption, whether they're also writing a paper about indirectly related research or not. Google's most profitable business, by far, is their ads business. They would be crazy to not expend significant money and effort to retain their lead in that space. Other stuff that comes out of it (as nice as often it is, and as much as I enjoy it) is often just a pleasant side effect.
But, I could be wrong. I would also like to point out that I don't have other ideas on funding AI or big data research. I'm just uncomfortable with it, though I don't expect others to necessarily share that discomfort.
In fact the whole AGI/HLAI/Strong AI thing has gotten a bad rap over and over that the majority of super serious researchers won't even talk about it in any seriousness a la Norvig et al. In fact Norvig arguably openly mocks AGI focused groups.
So until there is a real interest from some party that has money to put several billion into hardcore research, we will continue to see AI development live largely in the commercial world. Open source is a possibility like with opencog but history indicates that the bulk of the "big" minds and money don't go that way.
I see a veneer of disdain to Norvig's attitude in your words. I don't know much about this criticism, but to me he has done a lot of good to us researchers with his AIMA book. In fact, this is the core that vertebrates my blog: http://ai-maker.com/. In the end, Goertzel (guru in AGI) works again for a financial prediction firm, doesn't he?
> I consider this dangerous, in a way that I can't really put my finger on. Is it merely that some of the best minds in the field are being distracted by selling more crap that people don't need? Or is it that AI will have at its developmental core a model of inducing consumption as its prime directive? Or, am I just an asshole that doesn't like too many things?
http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/
This is long, but very, very good and may clear up some confusions.
Some of the best AI researchers working on this problem probably won't stop the community from pushing towards it. The majority of people in general is happy with just doing their job.
I consider this dangerous, in a way that I can't really put my finger on. Is it merely that some of the best minds in the field are being distracted by selling more crap that people don't need? Or is it that AI will have at its developmental core a model of inducing consumption as its prime directive? Or, am I just an asshole that doesn't like too many things?