Comment by snowwrestler
1 year ago
For argument’s sake, let’s be generous and stipulate your phone is listening for 11k keywords to serve you ads.
Why would “pool fencing” take up one of those valuable keyword slots on everyone’s phone?
And you’re going to see way less than 11k ads per day. Why would the ad server prioritize serving an ad for pool fencing (a phrase said once) over all the far more common topics a person talks about in a typical day, like movies, TV shows, food and drink, clothes, cars, consumer electronics, music, etc?
"look into" is a much more likely trigger, then send the 30 seconds before and after to a server for more analysis. "buying" could be another. It's not like it would be that hard. Especially with some of the pretty good vocal compression for audio. It would be a small blip on a modern connection, even wireless.
I'm not saying it is or isn't happening but it wouldn't be hard.
Couldn’t we test that? If the theory was that buying was a key word we could sniff not activity when that word is said could we not?
Your argument plays with the idea that the phone listening stuff is the only source of information for the ad networks. But it would be much more complex. It would be only one of many signals, that are used to serve the consumer the right advertisement in the right moment. So it doesn't need to have the exact phrase "pool fencing" in the database. It just need to detect that something about pools, or swimming, etc. was talked about. Since Google has thousands of signals and statistics (like browsing history, current location, the other smartphones that are near, and those histories etc.) about this person, it can sell the ad space to "pool fencing" and expect a high click through rate. Selling ads is a bit like the current LLMs. It's just a stochastic parrot, that hallucinates stuff. But the stuff is often that advertisement that brings in the most money.
The self-expressed goal of this kind of test is to pick a phrase or topic that is so random that it escapes that person's existing ad data profile. As the comment above said, "He doesn't own a swimming pool, doesn't want to, and has never expressed any desire to."
So showing that person an ad for pool fencing is a complete waste; they're never going to click it. If that's what an alleged audio targeting system does, it would make the ad network less profitable than just using the data they already have. So why would anyone build it that way?
I dont know if phones listen to us to serve ads, but 11K is a decent vocab. Most adults have a vocab of 20K. Therefore I could imagine it including the words "pool" and "fencing".