I don't think it's a matter of if but when. Grim.
What could possibly go wrong?
But here we can start also the usual discussion about technology research for the sake of it vs calibration of possible side effects of new research
Personally i think we haven’t solve this problem and thus it’s just a matter of time until we’ll get in a non-going-back point
Will be interesting to see how strong the controlling forces can be - enough to make you miss things in direct perception like in the book, or only softer effects further up the cognition layer stack
- They're already well able to surface the most addictive short video for a specific user out of millions of real videos.
- But these millions of real videos are just darts thrown into the space of "videos that could hook the user", in the end even the best-selected of them is not perfect.
- Now, behold! AI allows to generate the perfect video to surgically hit all the switches in the viewer's brain and turn it into a zombie hooked for days on end.
Let's hope our regulations hit these "social networks" hard enough so that never dare deploy this kind of technology.
We train an encoding model, a “digital twin”, that predicts how each visual region responds to any video. Now we can ask: which video would make a chosen region light up the most? NEvo searches for that video automatically, using the twin’s prediction as its reward.
I only scanned the paper, so maybe I missed it, but is there any confirmation that this ‘digital twin’ works? Like, do the generated videos actually cause the same patterns as in the ‘digital twin’ brain model in real humans in an MRI machine? My instinct is to be skeptical that it’s possible to reliably create a video -> brain activation prediction model.
This is a tool to help researchers in figuring out what different parts of the brain are actually for with less experimenter bias contamination of “well we think maybe it’s about this so let’s show it video of x to see”.
The essence runs on having someone sit in a scanner for a couple hours watching all sorts of things, and then feeding that to a model that will then build its own representation of said data and try different things on it until it’s found what makes a certain part sing in the model.
The purpose is a generalized understanding of brain function, more or less the same way we’ve been doing it all these years. Expose brain to something, record it somehow, see if brains reaction in the recording helps you understand more about who we are and what cognition is.
I had an Aunt who had dementia. This is obviously a terrible outlook. But her and my Uncle seemed to be doing okay. My Uncle was an ultra-competent guy, highly stable, the person you could rely on; and had been his whole adult life. So it was shocking when he had a mental breakdown and became manic. There was probably something physical going on, but what was also going on was that he had wanted my aunt to be able to live normally for as long as possible, so had been covering everything - for a year or more he'd had to be alert 7 days a week in case my aunt tried to cook on the gas stove or something like that, at which she was no longer safe. So the risk-alert part of his brain had been constantly overworked.
I appreciate that this is scientific research, but there are definitely companies out there that will try to row-hammer everyone's brain if this sort of thing is not heavily controlled.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernormal_stimulus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLIT_(short_story)
Also: one of the V3A animations reminds me loosely of things I saw when I was a kid, at night, shortly before I slept (though my experience then was more circular).
If future generations of researchers will wonder why IRB reviews became mandatory for computer science, studies like this will be the answer.
Seriously, some people don't seem to realize the point at which they are becoming Fritz Haber.
e.g. cartoons from the 1950s were designed to have:
- cute animals
- short and fast scene cuts
- catchy music
b/c all three of the above were known to trick the human brain into "sit still and observe" mode.
Focus groups did the same thing for advertising which then morphed into A/B testing to determine revealed preferences.
Same thing with the whole fat/salt/sugar research that led to near addictive fast food.
This is just the next logical step.
But for the paper itself, it seems they're using genetic optimization over predefined keywords. Wonder what would happen if they did gradient descent on the latent space directly. Is brain stimulation just not a good domain for GD?
reason I am asking it could be some relief to our brains after tedious working day, especially after heavy AI usage
if it is targetting visual regions of brain and I have aphantasia (I cannot visualize anything in my mind) is that connected?
Tolls like this have the potential to make this so much worse.
I wish we had the Hippocratic oath for STEM, or at least that they would take ethics seriously rather than an afterthought against the god of Progress at all costs.
Is my brain different or am I just a grumpy millenial hipster?
I haven't looked in super close detail to the paper, but their methods section says that they fit a video model (V-JEPA2) to the fMRI dataset in a voxelwise ridge regression, meaning that the baked in assumption is that the visual response affects each voxel independently. Voxelwise models are very nice for making statistical inferences, but are less good for prediction and modelling tasks, because our brains certainly do not work as collections of independent regions.
BOLD is intensely messy data, and their design is far too simple IMO to reflect anything of reality.
The largest LLMs right now are at best 1% the number of parameters of a human brain.
"At best" if synapses are one parameter each, real ones are probably more than that, but nobody's entirely sure yet.
I’m sure there was an early hominid version of this discourse. “Maybe bad to make sharp rock and sharp stick if this what we do with it…” “Mmm yes someday we make sharp rock big enough smash world.”
Realistically, probably ads, but maybe not only that?
(AI start-up idea: one of our ads a day keeps dementia away! /s)
You can of course, also not get the spike ads, by subscribing to Premium. Just have a quick look at this animated QR code, it will explain better than I can in writing.
Edit: there used to be an OSS app you could use where you actually pick what you want activated in your brain and when, but it's been banned after one of the commercial producers's investors convinced the government that this technology was too powerful, so only government-approved apps are allowed now, and an emergency vote passed the BrainControl law authorizing logging of all visual stimuli you look at, in order to protect your children.
It's so cool that you have an MRI handy to check such things.
All of this to say, if you subjected yourself to just enough TikTok scrolling on just the right topic, you might find yourself using it occasionally after that initial hump, then slightly more frequently, then daily.
You might still not "like" it, but the habit is what matters.
I do enjoy watching YouTube videos at home, on the living-room flatscreen, on a variety of topics, but I select them manually, one at a time, from the vast selection The Algorithm(TM) offers me, plus my own searches.
We have not yet seen* the kind of large-scale, individually targeted psychological manipulation that cloud AI products can deliver. And I have no doubt the likes of Dario Amodei and Sam Altman will show us, if we give them enough time.
* I suppose the GPT-4o sycophancy/AI psychosis crisis was a preview, but that was just blunt “engagement” tuning.
You'd do as well to hope that people wake up and stop opening the damned sites
I’m always skeptical of these papers that claim to read minds, because my understanding is current brain reading technology is very coarse (Neuralink is SOTA, very invasive, and only 1-3 thousand electrodes for 55-70 billion of neurons; fMRI is much worse) and neural networks generate plausible images and videos from noise. Indeed, the example videos don’t seem particularly stimulating, just random.
The fact it’s bucketing by making images of lighting and facial expressions, the fact it doesn’t natively do the video it does an image then video generates from it.
The results look really bad and samey. Doubt this would work for the actual thing they’re pitching it for.
We did. Pre-WW II ..., and afterwards, the old, everlasting Cold War (vs the new one). And there are self-emerging/self-organizing buckets of people who all pledged their allegiance to ideas and plans, works forever in progress and aggregating jobs and expanding industries. People with value and virtue systems, radicalized or called to some need-to-know duty. And the personal level was always covered by applied and philosophical psychology, cultural discourses, however progressively or decadently lead by public figures while peoples' desires were and still are shaped by interactions, social AND parasocial.
Shouldn't we stop wondering whether they have enough time, now that several hundreds of thousands of hours of work already done and work yet to get done are neatly compressed into a few instants?
AI will always be "two" things:
- a search engine that misses less and less and is just waiting for you to increase your processing power - a tool to cope with your laziness or disability by deferring or skipping intervals of learning curves and/or biomechanics - an evergrowing compendium of abstractions and intents, formalized or not, by humans, for humans, off humans (even when it's AI)
but that's irrelevant ... because humans will always be only "two" things, as well.
So, ... the threat vector remains unchanged, however AI, accessibility and skill will amplify or change the landscape: casually, no, leisurely ignorant bystanders.
my mother recently got served a quite... disturbing video on Facebook. I won't get into details of the vid. what I can tell is that she was so dazed that she didn't even immediately understand me when I asked her, "delete Facebook and Instagram immediately or else they will think you like it and will serve you more." she kept replaying this video in her head. in a moment, I thought I wouldn't make her snap out.
for context, she is a damned Reels addict with war-induced traumas. (Ukrainian here.) she agreed to delete Facebook but decided to keep Instagram. we frequently pick bones about her sending stupid Reels and me hating them with passion. and every time I said "delete Instagram and your life will go up," she brought up scandals until she talked to a therapist.
EDIT: to quote a sibling comment, this is, indeed, like dealing with a drug addict.
B. "Digital twins" e.g. [1] are a growing class of brain simulations that can successfully approximate brain activity patterns at large scale. I think these can be very useful, but we shouldn't think that they are at the level of actually simulating a brain. They are usually made of model neuronal approximative simulations (e.g. integrate and fire, balancing excitatory and inhibitatory neural populations within units), then using diffusion imaging to estimate white matter axonal wiring between those populations from the subject to increase the accuracy of the simulation. These are increasingly being used to, for example, model how a surgical intervention would effect seizure propagation prior to actual surgery. Here is a nice episode of Theoretical Neuroscience podcast [2] on the Virtual Brain [3], one of the available models for this kind of work.
C. In terms of validation. Only partly. From my quick read, this NEVO model optimized neural response only in the digital twin encoding model. While the digital twin model reportedly has solid predictive validity [4], which by the way was not the Virtual Brain model I mentioned in point B. Moreover, the outputs looked neurobiologically plausible, but at this point, there is no independent model or new fMRI showing the optimized stimuli actually drive the target regions. This was performed using previously collected fMRI data, and full validation of this model *IS* the obvious next step, but the money to collect such data does not come from nowhere: funding will be needed, and such a paper as this can help them get it.
D. A final point I'd make. We have long been able to create static stimuli that we can be fairly certain will activate above baseline certain brain regions, on average. Certain stimuli-region pairs ar emore homogenous between people, others e.g. the fusiform face area (FFA), are small enough that individual differences prevent a simple ROI approach, and identification depends on using face stimuli to identify at the individual level, but for the most part, it is reliably locatable. Brain activations are very coarse things. In fMRI, you are talking about ~3x3x3mm voxels (27mm^3) where the hemodynamic responses have a ton of spatial autocorrelation, or in EEG, where the surface spatial area of the reeptive fields are very large(~400 mm^2). These virtual twin models already do a decent job of modeling dynamics of the brain there parameters are tuned to *at this scale*..but this scale does not have a ton of information content. Automating this with video content is not that much a reach.
[1] https://spj.science.org/doi/10.34133/icomputing.0055 [2] https://theoreticalneuroscience.no/thn23/ [3] https://www.thevirtualbrain.org/tvb/zwei/ [4] https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.07.22.664908v2....
Here is how I see it. This type of research helps us understand the brain, helps us do things like model potential surgery sites better (e.g. for seizure activity interventions). What it does not do is become the basis for mind reading.
Just so that you know that I am not totally unsympathetic to your apparent worldview, let me tell you how I think your concern might actually play out:
AI continues to get more powerful, and computer brain interfaces begin to move beyond EEG scalp electrodes, but begins to take the form or brain augmentation via integrating networked AI compute into implanted chips with electrode neural interfaces, where our brain's neurons and the neural interfaces learn to speak each other's language (i.e. integrate). I can actually see this happening within 20 years. At first, it would be our brain using this augmentation for greater intelligence, etc. However, remote manipulation of the interface could reverse control of brain activity, leading exactly to your fear.
But this research? This is light years from that,,,so much so that it is not even relevant to bring up unless you are just against all technology.
And I have yet to see a single paper like this where a researcher bails out and publicly says they refuse to work on such projects. Not one.
The most benign interpretation of this observation is that science is filled with spineless opportunists who don’t care who they hurt with what they create. A slightly less benign interpretation might be that many of these people are doing this deliberately, and getting off on the sense of power it gives them.
Of course there are. Given what you know about the society we live in, do you think those will be the primary use cases that will be pursued?
Prior exposure to worse feeds gives like an analytical look on the vids rather than emotional. I am fast scanning for the joke. Or something.
Nothing special compared to purpose made screen savers.
Don’t count out Zuckerberg, he’s very good at being a villain.
Common misconception. We won't kill the planet even if we tried to. Wed make it too hard to sustain billions of humans, sure. But they are very different things
All the signals that are missed by the (f)MRI are never "mirrored" in the digital twin even though on screen it will look like it. Bam, Experimenter Bias in the machine and I don't know how to phrase it but ... does this method/experiment leave any wiggle room for Falsifiability?
Even if the Hawthorne Effect does not apply to humans, it most certainly translates onto the brain and sensory (post)-processing-- live and remembered (vs in-memory, stored), real, virtual or imagined.
... I just realized how vastly different peripherals are when real, remembered, virtual or imagined sensory input is (post-)processed ...
It feels more like the machine will reproduce a superficial pattern. And at least some signal streams echoing in the brain on input from the digital twin won't emerge because the digital twin has only part of the data. And that's a premise for an unnoticeable rewiring of what once used to fire together, ... given a hell of a lot of exposure, of course, ... or not ... let's see
EDIT n: the paper says pretty much all that in like ... science, bitch!
Epic stuff.
It also helps companies like Moonbug Entertainment (Candle Media) understand how to build better Distractatrons.
It’s a small TV screen, placed a few feet from the larger one, that plays a continuous loop of banal, real-world scenes — a guy pouring a cup of coffee, someone getting a haircut — each lasting about 20 seconds. Whenever a youngster looks away from the Moonbug show to glimpse the Distractatron, a note is jotted down.
“It’s not mega-interesting, what’s on the Distractatron,” said Maurice Wheeler, who runs the research group. “But if they aren’t fully focused, they might go, ‘Oh, what’s that?’ and kind of drift over. We can see what they’re looking at and the exact moment when they got distracted.”
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/06/17/cocomelon-chil...
What a world.
But re the underlying physical thing: You might look back and be able to spot some episodes of hypomania in your uncle's life. Perhaps just reduced sleep, or twinges of paranoia, or periods of on-again/off-again hyperproductivity, etc.
Hope that if this story is recent he's doing well. The recent generations of medications to prevent and treat mania are a huge improvement on the ones available in the past, so fingers crossed.
What's to gain in doing so?
Also relevant: <https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-math-theory-for-why-people-...>
My understanding is that those who work with the mentally handicapped use bright lights and other stimuli to soothe and control them. It is also my understanding that the autistic are stimulated by vibrant colors (coughcoughMy Little Ponycoughcough).
Who is to say that the rest of us are not also vulnerable to such controlling stimuli?
I can imagine this has some very undesirable usecases if used in the wrong way.
We tend to forget that both, the social and the media part, input and output, are interpersonal, first.
Ad targeting doesn't need improvement. The incentives offered to people with an adverse attitude towards Ads are shit. Think of incentives as having effects and side effects. It's about intent. Free TV had that down ages ago. It was awesome. But they fucked market entry and whole population segments, more or less conservative and/or liberal as well as more or less authentic sub-cultural patchworks were left unserved.
That wasn't even nonsense! MTV, suddenly going away? Uhm, guys, I only get Peeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee... beep boop bop beep boop bop beep... BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP... (pause) ...brr-ding... brr-ding... Krrrrrrrrrrr-shhhhhhhhhhhh-eeeeeeeeeee-awwwwwwwww-eeeeeeeeeee... Bong-bong-bong... KSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH (click).
Silence ...
around here, and then a lot of popups, ads, .... you know, the wild wild west of internet history ...
We talked TV on the street and in school. And Video games. Now Netflix et al and your feed, too. Who's roofs is most of that media industrial complex under?
Thinking Meta et al and their ads infrastructure and UX weighs as much as that of Free TV is falling for a rather simple Kansas City Shuffle.
"New", only now native media still doesn't interface as well with the brain and our emotional processing as TV and "The News" do. And won't until Neuralink et al get their interfaces all the way up your ... lobes.
Forget Zuckerberg et al and let them do their jobs. They don't need publicity, they need to filter for suitable test subjects, edge case pop segments whose needs & desires are yet to be fulfilled.
There's still a lot of people out there with something to put on the market but they can't because a little something is missing and nobody seems to know why ... something double long running on the news maybe?
> 59% of videos served to a new TikTok account’s For You page were AI slop
97% of videos under the #cartoonkids hashtag were AI slop
57.4% of TikToks in the Kids category were AI slop
Source: https://www.kapwing.com/resources/the-tiktok-ai-slop-report
The digital twin types of models will become more and more useful, but I don't think we will be at the point where all research will be done entirely within these models.
They can be fun to play with btw: https://www.thevirtualbrain.org/tvb/zwei/ and they don't require a beast of a machine to run.
(STS seems to be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_temporal_sulcus in the temporal lobe, so I guess it's the "I sense a presence" region.)
Explain the potential to exploit strong stimulation of specific visual regions for evil. "Oh, I very much detect a face/place/body/motion/pattern/human", says the subject. What are you going to do with that, startle them?
What exactly is your new fear here?
> p8: "A child watching television under normal conditions is subject to frequent interruptions and distractions. The TV must vie for his attention. In order to simulate this condition, we decided to program distractions into the laboratory situation... Slides could be used to fill the slide tray and they could be projected automatically, at regular intervals, onto a screen similar to that of the television set. The carousel projector allows the viewer to choose three exposure times. The 7.45 second interval proved most satisfactory with the preschool children.
THE FIRST YEAR OF SESAME STREET: THE FORMATIVE RESEARCH https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED047822.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Looker
the same year as Baudrillard's Simulacra and Simulation, featuring computer generated characters, brainwashing television commercials, a light pulse gun that causes absence seizures, gun battles inside a plastic surgery clinic and an AR simulation environment, a sadistic computer, a physician who doubles as an action hero, and James Coburn giving a lecture explaining the enemy's evil plans in the opposite role that he played in the (excellent) The President's Analyst.
This time I was not so dazzled and saw it for as atrocious everyone else things it is. The minions of "Digital Matrix, Inc." manage several assassinations with the light-pulse L.O.O.K.E.R. gun but when they use real firearms they outdo Vader's stormtroopers by shooting each other. (Want to see the scene where somebody from E.Y. tells them to stick to the L.O.O.K.E.R. gun) The bad guys explain the penultimate secret to the protagonist early on but the ultimate secret is revealed in the L.O.O.K.E.R. lab which doesn't feel like a lab at all but rather a rather good room in a theme park experience where you're supposed to uncover the secret. (Contrast that to the lab Doug Trumbull outfitted in the Brainstorms movie a few years later which is packed with real surplus equipment... I've been to that lab!)
I can see it now.. The Distractatrons: a new chapter of protagonists in Transformers! The modern equivalent of evil in this day and age of ADHD and low attention span!
Are you truly curious as to how it might not be A Good Thing that those engaging in high-finance capitalistic money making programs would have access to forcefully engaging a human being's brain into activity, with or without their consent, to such an extent as to drive motivations and bias neuronal activation that leads to what they think is a choice?
Said another way: Are you really curious as to how allowing a company additional tools to bias human interactions may not be A Good Thing?
If you need an example as to how this is clearly not A Good Thing, and that at least a portion of the world population agrees with that characteristic, that there are currently companies that have tried to actively do this already, and attempts are being made at least to fine them for their behavior as an attempt to curb it. Whether or not it succeeds is a question of governance at the moment since the US is currently under plutocratic control.
However, I would really urge you to explore this topic and really engage with what's happening due to the plutocratic class' capabilities over technologic change and societally enforced or biased adoption, and how they, in many extreme cases that are continuing to become more extreme, are not A Good Thing.
Simplest, most readily available example: https://ground.news/article/meta-says-us-states-are-seeking-...
Friendly reminder to touch grass on a regular basis... Even virtual grass in a video game is a good pressure valve for excessive social media use.
Or how a very useful tool can become a public health catastrophe.
When it is pushed from the top it is hard to stop at ground level.
Half joking, half paranoid.
I guess I just don't think this is the topic at hand. What you're proposing is mind control. That's not what's at issue. What's at issue is scientifically optimized superstimuli that can predictably activate certain brain regions. So when I read "rowhammer" I'm thinking about it in this context, the ability of a video to consistently activate a targeted section of your brain.
As you should know, and IIRC, cognition does not cleanly or consistently map geographically in the brain. To go from the ability to activate a subset of brain regions to influencing behavior is not a neglible step. The only real potential I imagine is in emotional activation, which is fairly well-localized.
So really what we're talking about is being able to evoke ideas and feelings with more consistency and precision than before. This doesn't seem new. And it can't be that intense either—I have the sense that your hypothetical mind control video would be extremely annoying or unpleasant before becoming influential. And for now we have the freedom to choose what we watch and turn the video off.
And it might be reasonable to say that you were referring to future possibilities, and that I'm focusing too much on what's currently available. But I am not just reacting to the first quoted clause of parent, but to their [vomits] policy recommendations. "This sort of thing", if not heavily controlled, etc. Maybe you see no value in this research, maybe there isn't any. Nonetheless the paranoid and the scifi-as-nonfiction readers will throw up the Bat signal for the idiots and moral panic orchestrators in power to wrap us all in comforting red tape for our own good.
I exaggerate. And I am talking about many more things than you were, as if the volume of text strengthens any rebuttal. All I'm saying is, this tech has little power over human behavior, in my opinion, and we should be cautious before bringing the hammer down before we know if we've got a bumblebee or a wasp.
That’s irrelevant for the moral evaluation. Everyone is responsible for their own actions. If you choose not to kill anyone it won’t stop others from killing. But the fact that this is so doesn’t give you a license to kill.
Earth has been a rich, life sustaining planet in far hotter conditions then anything we are projected to take it to.
We can kill billions of ourselves, but short of ww3 earth will crack on just fine.
Social media emotional hot-takes dont match the numbers.
We are still screwed though.
Sometimes endnotes reference other endnotes and you have to wait until the point in the text, e.g. endnote 304 is referenced from earlier endnotes than it occurs in the text (rather late in the book) and you just have to wait until endnote 304 is read to find out what it is. that's a bit of a disadvantage, but infinite jest is the kind of book that you really need to read multiple times in order to get it anyways.
And yes, I agree. Im on my second read through now. The first time I skipped the first ~50 end notes. I thought the creator of infinite jest was a mystery, same with Joelles deformity (“was she really mangled or not— maybe we find out at the end!”). Oh, those two things are spelled out clearly in early end notes..
Any DFW fans here want to conjecture as to what “atemporal” jazz Pemulis listens to? I was thinking maybe some albert manglesdorf or perhaps ornette coleman..
Without ads and exploitation of the masses, none of these would not be possible.
The pyramids were not built by slaves, and while we can waffle around about "all labor is exploitative to some extent", it doesn't take exploitation-maxxing to drive great achievements. Most great modern achievements are driven by a desire for self-actualization or recognition, not survival.
https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/were-the-egyptian-pyram...
Slavery (or getting poorer people to do the work for you) is the central concept of civilization. It cannot be done without it. It's not capital or advertising that makes all this work, it's forcing the poor to work and pay tax that makes the world go round d
Also this seems to ignore that people can be influenced or manipulated without being consciously aware of it. Like the people that say that marketing doesn’t work on them, failing to see that every interaction with the products and services they buy and use are curated in some way to influence and manipulate them.
You might as well have said that without advertising, we wouldn't have charities, freedom of thought, and literature: the argument is as strong and might make you feel even better about yourself.
Oh, turns out that you did say that advertising solved slavery in another comment. Carry on, mate.
It is then useful to ask: if innovation is what we want, do there exist engines that aren't quite as expensive?
If the market economy has more of a human face than outright slavery, there's no reason to believe that it's impossible to do better: a Copernican position would say that we'd be no more likely to be correct than an ancient Egyptian who claims it's impossible to do better than state slavery.
For example, I'm in theory opposed to the prohibition on crack cocaine, despite its strong consistent effect on personal agency, because of two things: basic moral principles (my body my choice), and the massive (hopefully unintended) side effects of prohibition. Namely, mass incarceration, black markets, decreased drug quality, gang violence, exhaustion of policing resources, the public perception of systemic racism, and tax losses. My guess is the downsides of a hypothetical ban on algorithmically optimized advertisements would be of a very different kind but similar quantity. And again, the other issue is basic moral principles. I'm not comfortable with bracketing free expression with numerous exceptions, rate-limits, inspectors, or whatever apparatchiks would be employed to enforce such a restriction.
But that does not stop me from recognizing the part it plays in the world. That shouldn't stop you either.
> we wouldn't have charities, freedom of thought, and literature:
Does great literature require huge capital?
This is not true of the Pyramids
https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/were-the-egyptian-pyram...
The point is the exploitation of the masses and the ensuing concentration of wealth is the enabler. Sure we might find a way to do that without Ads...
>Those ancient wonders were enabled by slave labor
That is exactly the point.
