What if Customers Started Saying No to AI? (msn.com) 199
An artist cancelled their Duolingo and Audible subscriptions to protest the companies' decisions to use more AI. "If enough people leave, hopefully they kind of rethink this," the artist tells the Washington Post.
And apparently, many more people feel the same way... In thousands of comments and posts about Audible and Duolingo that The Post reviewed across social media — including on Reddit, YouTube, Threads and TikTok — people threatened to cancel subscriptions, voiced concern for human translators and narrators, and said AI creates inferior experiences. "It destroys the purpose of humanity. We have so many amazing abilities to create art and music and just appreciate what's around us," said Kayla Ellsworth, a 21-year-old college student. "Some of the things that are the most important to us are being replaced by things that are not real...."
People in creative jobs are already on edge about the role AI is playing in their fields. On sites such as Etsy, clearly AI-generated art and other products are pushing out some original crafters who make a living on their creations. AI is being used to write romance novels and coloring books, design logos and make presentations... "I was promised tech would make everything easier so I could enjoy life," author Brittany Moone said. "Now it's leaving me all the dishes and the laundry so AI can make the art."
But will this turn into a consumer movement? The article also cites an assistant marketing professor at Washington State University, who found customers are now reacting negatively to the term "AI" in product descriptions — out of fear for losing their jobs (as well as concerns about quality and privacy). And he does predict this can change the way companies use AI.
"There will be some companies that are going to differentiate themselves by saying no to AI." And while it could be a niche market, "The people will be willing to pay more for things just made by humans."
And apparently, many more people feel the same way... In thousands of comments and posts about Audible and Duolingo that The Post reviewed across social media — including on Reddit, YouTube, Threads and TikTok — people threatened to cancel subscriptions, voiced concern for human translators and narrators, and said AI creates inferior experiences. "It destroys the purpose of humanity. We have so many amazing abilities to create art and music and just appreciate what's around us," said Kayla Ellsworth, a 21-year-old college student. "Some of the things that are the most important to us are being replaced by things that are not real...."
People in creative jobs are already on edge about the role AI is playing in their fields. On sites such as Etsy, clearly AI-generated art and other products are pushing out some original crafters who make a living on their creations. AI is being used to write romance novels and coloring books, design logos and make presentations... "I was promised tech would make everything easier so I could enjoy life," author Brittany Moone said. "Now it's leaving me all the dishes and the laundry so AI can make the art."
But will this turn into a consumer movement? The article also cites an assistant marketing professor at Washington State University, who found customers are now reacting negatively to the term "AI" in product descriptions — out of fear for losing their jobs (as well as concerns about quality and privacy). And he does predict this can change the way companies use AI.
"There will be some companies that are going to differentiate themselves by saying no to AI." And while it could be a niche market, "The people will be willing to pay more for things just made by humans."
Come on (Score:4, Insightful)
People threaten to cancel their usage every time Meta does something stupid, and still Facebook and WhatsApp are thriving. A lot has to happen before people who say "I will cancel my subscriptions if you do that!" really cancel their subscriptions. Shouting empty threats during a shitstorm feels good, actually uninstalling the app you use daily does not. And companies know that.
Re: (Score:3)
People are lazy and cheap, it's in our nature (conservation of energy and all that). It's only a minority who truly appreciate what others are doing and are willing (not just saying) to show it by paying or working more for it.
The arts have always been limited to a small group of creators and lovers while the others indulged in easy mass entertainment.
Re:Come on (Score:4, Insightful)
Mass artistic availability is a new thing. It used to be limited to patrons and friends&family of the artist. (Yeah, if you go back to tribal culture, it was commonly available, but that was essentially friends&family. Get beyond a very small group and interactions change.)
Exception: Music was often generally available. But it was also limited in "quality". High quality music (e.g. bards and minstrels) was only commonly available to the rich or was propaganda, e.g. for a religion.
Re: (Score:2)
Art is still limited quality wise even at mass availibility, which is why I stated that.
Mass (Score:2)
Mass artistic availability is a new thing. It used to be limited to patrons and friends&family of the artist.
Hardly. Perhaps for some media but go to Europe and you'll see statues in towns and cities that everyone has been able to see for centuries although every so often some to get torn down and replaced due to chaing political foibles. Itinerant troupes of both actors and musicians were also common in earlier times - not much of it was high quality though...and arguably that is still the case. So no, mass artistic availability is not a new thing but the media and manner of what it looked like has certainly cha
Re: (Score:2)
Most of those statues were propaganda. For music it depends on what you mean by "commonly available". The actors and musicians weren't usually around. So while there were available to the commons, they weren't usually available, except to patrons and friends&family. This only changed with the rise of cities, and even in the early steam era about 90% of the population lived in rural areas.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that means electronic distribution via the internet, social media, television.
Those things did not exist until 1940-1950.
So minstrels showing up in your village in the middle ages?
Also, you can't distribute a statue.
That's not mass distribution.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm going to try to interpret the parent's assertion that "Mass artistic availability is a new thing". I think that means electronic distribution via the internet, social media, television. Those things did not exist until 1940-1950.
Those things did not exist in a practical sense until after 1940-1950. Even television only had a 1% U.S. adoption rate in 1948.
But before any of those things we had high quality prints available for centuries at affordable prices, and then there was player piano reels and radio and phonograph records. Which does take us up to the 1940-1950 period.
Re: Come on (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>"Handmade" items are *already* a thing, but people still mostly choose to buy things made by machines in factories.
I think this is the key on how things will go. There will be a luxury market of "Handmade" art or whatever, but most will use the cheaper AI made stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
It depends on the product. If you want art, your choice is AI slop or a real artist. If you choose AI slop you might regret it - there are subreddits for boycotting products that use AI, and numerous posts on legal subreddits from people who unknowingly bought AI art and are now seeing their product get review bombed and sales dry up.
One guy who was based in the UK said his previously successful indy game had gone from a few hundred sales a month to almost nil, as Steam reviews filled up with complaints abo
Re: Come on (Score:2)
I'm on Facebook* because other people I care about are on Facebook. Sony PSN was the only other I service I've used where that was a critical factor. Not the same as Amazon or T-Mobile or anyone else abusing AI.
* I'm unaware of FB having a paid subscription, even if it exists nobody I know has mentioned it. If that was a reference to the blue check I only have one friend who has done that and it was for professional reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
And you won't uninstall DuoLingo because that would break your streak ;)
I doubt the permanent change in users due to user protests is noticeable. There may be a protest peak, then they keep silent for a moment and then people come back or new people start using the app ignoring past shitstorms.
Re: (Score:2)
Is facebook really thriving?
I wouldn't know since i haven't looked at it in ages
Re: (Score:2)
Mastodon: no one.
TikTok: a lot of the younger generation
No (Score:2)
But will this turn into a consumer movement?
No.
who found customers are now reacting negatively to the term "AI" in product descriptions
Then they'll call it something else.
No to AI customer support (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:No to AI customer support (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The company thinks you're not paying enough for that.
No "AI" in my private bank, for example. At least in the customer-facing part. No "AI" in many other places I use.
In fact, all the "AI" I'm getting is in the elevator pitches of some kids who want to get rich quick and think babbling about "AI" is the way to do it.
Their fathers were trying to sell me subprime securities back when ole Greenspan was keeping the interest rates low.
Money talks, same blowback from Made-in-China (Score:3, Insightful)
"The people will be willing to pay more for things just made by humans."
In the 1990s, after the fall of the Berlin Wall and demise of the Soviet Union, the age of globalization [aided by the "information superhighway"] swept over the industrialized world: manufacturing migrated more intensely overseas, outsourcing was all of the rage, and overall cost efficiencies became achievable within years instead of decades. This business opportunity (economies of scale) was the underbelly behind Amazon from a profits-by-volume measure.
China became the dominant manufacturing hub but there was plenty of blowback for the increasing Made-in-China labels across all kinds of consumer goods. In the US, Made-in-America became a rallying cry for politicians and a marketing campaign by manufacturers... all with the promise that higher-quality domestic production, which would command higher price tags relative to the global market choices, would win-out the consumers' overall purchasing habits.
And it did: opinion polls all over agreed that domestic production was of higher-quality, and opinion polls agreed that their higher price tags were fully justified. Fast-forward to today and manufacturing in China far outweighs domestic production regardless of cost because money talks and everyone, by and large, would rather save money than not.
The same will happen with AI-or-AI-free products development and marketing. Will people be willing to pay more? Sure. But will people actually pay more for non-AI-laden products? Hahaha, no. Reduced operating costs for the products while increasing the product pricing equals MORE PROFITS and that's the last thing people want to pay for... loading up executives' pockets over the increase in profit margins.
Any products marketed as, "and now without any AI," should be viewed skeptically as just another money-grab. It's the same decision model used by many crooks holding positions of power, also.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Money talks, same blowback from Made-in-China (Score:3)
Re: Money talks, same blowback from Made-in-China (Score:4, Insightful)
Clients are tasteless and cheap. Their expectations are easily met, because most of them think they know what "good" advertising is. Good enough is the new high quality.
Eventually..... (Score:2)
The AI "fakes" will get good enough that most people won't be able to tell. Then the bean counters take over and companies do whatever is cheapest. They won't give a rat's ass about authenticity or whether or not it offends the sensibilities of the market. If they can hide it and it cut costs, it'll happen whether people want it or not.
Best,
Re: Eventually..... (Score:2)
AI is not the problem. (Score:5, Insightful)
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftheintercept.com%2F2016%2F... [theintercept.com]
It really sucks for the first ranks of people who are put out of work by AI but instead of going against AI why not go against capitalism?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
First of all, Donald Trump is not a capitalist. As a capitalist, I disagree with him profoundly.
Rather, Capitalism is founded on principles:
- Private property. People and businesses have a right to own things.
- Profit motive. Businesses are driven to take risks, innovate, and improve efficiency in order to increase profits.
- Supply and demand. Prices are set based on the balance of supply vs. demand.
- Competition. Businesses must compete for customers.
- Freedom of choice. People and businesses can make thei
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:AI is not the problem. (Score:5, Informative)
Donald Trump achieved his wealth by
- Refusing to pay bills - https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.usatoday.com%2Fstory... [usatoday.com]
- Deception https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fusw.org%2Fbillionaire-tr... [usw.org]
- Refusing to pay workers - https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fthehill.com%2Fblogs%2Fball... [thehill.com]
- Suing thousands of businesses - https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.usatoday.com%2Fpages... [usatoday.com]
There is nothing capitalist about these approaches to gaining money by whatever means. These behaviors _should_ lead to jail, not riches. But you can't blame capitalism, this is more about corruption and greed and abusing the legal system.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There are corrupt and greedy people in every economic system, capitalist or otherwise. You are shifting the goalposts.
Yes, greedy people can abuse capitalist principles to get what they want. But that doesn't make their greed, a capitalist thing.
Yes, corrupt people can abuse capitalist principles to get what they want. But that doesn't make corruption, a capitalist thing.
Corrupt and greedy people can and do abuse socialism to achieve their goals as well.
Capitalism rewards everyone who is willing to work or
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Difference is, we have not seen socialism or communism yet. Only totalitarianism being done under the guise of socialism or communism.
I agree.
You suggest that capitalism encourages greed and corruption. I say that we've never seen actual communism or socialism because they (without intending to) encourage greed and corruption even more than capitalism. In theory, these systems could work beautifully, if *everyone* operated out of pure and altruistic motives. Unfortunately, that requirement sabotages their very existence, as we have seen in this real world's history.
By contrast, capitalism assumes that people will behave in their own self-
Re: (Score:2)
After a thorough review of this thread, I have concluded that Tony Isaac actually knows what he is talking about, and lives in the real world.
fluffernutter, however, is stating naive talking points that are quickly refuted by a review of history and human nature.
In aggregate, humans will (very reliably) respond to their actual incentives. When their rewords are not a result of their efforts, their efforts wane. A few unusually enlightened people might devotedly serve the greater good, on an ongoing basis,
Re: (Score:2)
How so?
These are the cornerstones of capitalism.
Get the highest returns on capital no matter what.
Re: (Score:2)
No, that is your opinion, not reality. In my previous post, I listed the actual principles on which capitalism is based. https://f6ffb3fa-34ce-43c1-939d-77e64deb3c0c.atarimworker.io/comments.... [slashdot.org]
For a source, see Wikipedia: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F... [wikipedia.org]
Capitalism does *not* endorse corruption or deceit or dishonesty. Go ahead, see if you can find a source for your opinion, that is anything other than an opinion piece.
Re:AI is not the problem. (Score:4, Insightful)
- Private property. People and businesses have a right to own things.: la Presidenta has been stealing "capital" since he got his first blob of money from his father. Just look at the number of small businesses he screwed out of payment, or his bankruptcies.
- Profit motive. Businesses are driven to take risks, innovate, and improve efficiency in order to increase profits.: Really? la Presidenta only takes risks with other peoples' money, including taxes. Now he's risking the entire U.S. economy so that he can continue his grifts. His push to "bring back American production" is silly and he knows it, but it plays well. He wants trade "deals" he can strut around claiming credit for returning trade to what it was before his started his trade wars.
- Supply and demand. Prices are set based on the balance of supply vs. demand. la Presdienta never believed in supply and demand other than if he could screw someone out of their nickels because he owned a supply and they had a demand.
- Competition. Businesses must compete for customers.: la Presidenta is the antithesis of competition, he only "succeeds" when the deck is stacked in his favor. He gets that by leveraging one area against another and lying his ass off about what he can deliver. He works on a never-ending supply of marks, and his Maggots give him that supply.
- Freedom of choice. People and businesses can make their own economic decisions.: If la Presidenta believed in choice, he wouldn't go all satanic on DEI, abortion, the news media, etc.
First rule of la Presdienta: he corrupts everything he touches.
Re: (Score:3)
Donald Trump is not a capitalist
wat
Nobody is more capitalist than Cheeto Benito.
Capitalism means one and only one thing, capital controls the means of production. When you imagine it means other things you're doing yourself a disservice. When you then go on to make statements based on those imaginings you're doing everyone one.
Capitalism is founded on principles:
Capitalism is founded on ONE principle, he who has the gold makes the rules. All that other stuff is window dressing bullshit.
Re: (Score:3)
You say capitalism is based on one principle. Can you please cite your source? Or are you just painting a caricature created by people who hate capitalism?
Wikipedia has a nice summary of the foundations of capitalism here: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F... [wikipedia.org]
I don't subscribe to the capitalism you describe. But I don't agree that what you are describing, is capitalism.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't subscribe to the capitalism you describe
Capitalism is not a subscription service. It is a means of control based on fictional abstraction.
But I don't agree that what you are describing, is capitalism.
The very first statement in the article you cited is "Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their use for the purpose of obtaining profit." You cited it without understanding it. The top of the second paragraph states:
Re: (Score:2)
You keep saying I'm imagining things about Capitalism, when actually, I literally reiterated the list of characteristics directly from Wikipedia. Are you suggesting I made up the Wikipedia article?
You say "It is a means of control based on fictional abstraction." Where's your source for that? That's an opinion statement, rooted in bias.
Capitalism, like any other economic system, does require external control, in the form of regulation. It cannot be allowed to run completely free. Government's role in a capi
Re: (Score:2)
You keep saying I'm imagining things about Capitalism, when actually, I literally reiterated the list of characteristics directly from Wikipedia.
Nobody should be teaching you how to read at this late date. You skipped over text around that text that was important.
You say "It is a means of control based on fictional abstraction." Where's your source for that?
Understanding of the word "control" and of the nature of currency.
I shouldn't be having to teach you how to think, either.
Re: (Score:2)
We do agree that control (power) is a beast that must be restrained.
Socialism and communism invest so much control in government, that government itself becomes the enemy.
Capitalism attempts to distribute control, diluting power. And that results in better outcomes for everyone.
We can see this clearly in that even the poor in the US, are rich compared to the poor of developing countries. We do *not* see the winners taking from the losers. Rather, we see the rising tide lifting all boats. Yes, we do have our
Re: (Score:2)
We do agree that control (power) is a beast that must be restrained.
Yes.
Socialism and communism invest so much control in government, that government itself becomes the enemy.
It doesn't matter what kind of government you have, if you don't have an active hand in it, it's going to get away from you. The type of government only changes the direction in which the ball rolls.
Capitalism attempts to distribute control, diluting power. And that results in better outcomes for everyone.
Capitalism itself doesn't attempt to distribute control or not distribute control. It only "tries" to give the bulk of the control to the people with the bulk of the money. If those people make rules that give them all the money, then they get all of the control.
NO other economic system results in such a large portion of the population achieving a decent living.
It's just another kind of economic system that
Re: (Score:2)
I think we agree on all points except this:
Capitalism itself doesn't attempt to distribute control or not distribute control. It only "tries" to give the bulk of the control to the people with the bulk of the money
No. Under capitalism, each person controls their own property. Bill Gates or Elon Musk don't get to tell me what kind of car or house I can have or how I should care for them. They don't get to tell me how I spend my money. If I take on a second job or get promoted, they have no say in what I do with that extra money. They don't tell me where to shop or what to buy. I get to choose those things because my money and my stuff belongs to me.
If a rich person or company
Re: (Score:2)
No. Under capitalism, each person controls their own property.
That's not true, though.
Bill Gates or Elon Musk don't get to tell me what kind of car or house I can have or how I should care for them.
Yes, they absolutely do. The wealthy buy the laws, and the laws determine what kind of car or house you can have and how you should care for them.
If I take on a second job or get promoted, they have no say in what I do with that extra money.
They are deciding that right now. It's called the "big beautiful bill". They are deciding who gets taxed how much, and on what basis, so they can decide that you get to keep less of your money, and they get to keep more of theirs. Denialism doesn't change that.
If a rich person or company gains too much control of a market, the government can and should step in. That's what antitrust law is for, though the US hasn't been enforcing this law very well of late. But that's a government problem, not a capitalism problem.
It's absolutely a capitalism problem right now, because capitalism is what gives
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, they absolutely do. The wealthy buy the laws, and the laws determine what kind of car or house you can have and how you should care for them.
Can you name a single *specific* thing about my house or car or how I care for them, that was dictated by Bill Gates or Elon Musk? You are hand-waving. There is nothing behind that statement but prejudice.
Trump's "big beautiful bill" is a catastrophe, I agree with you on that. But that's politics, not capitalism. Trump didn't get wealthy by following capitalism, but by lying, cheating, and abusing the legal system for his own gain. Don't confuse political nonsense for capitalist principles. They are not the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Capitalism is not the best system, but the only stable one.
If you suspect that everyone will at some point try to scam others for their own advantage if they get the chance to, then capitalism is not only honest about people being egoistic, but also provides a system that gains stability (and inflexibility) *because* everyone is trying to maximize their own profit.
But that's a stable system like the outcome of the prisoner's dilemma. Everyone acts selfish so the overall outcome is worse for everyone. The pr
Re: (Score:2)
If that isn't obvious: Capitalism also requires regulation. Not because it would be unstable, but because the stable state it achieves without regulation results in significant societal issues. Unfair starting conditions lead to unfair outcomes, and society must help provide equal opportunities and support those who cannot achieve enough to live well.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfair starting conditions lead to unfair outcomes
No. Life is just plain unfair. Even if everyone has the same starting conditions (which they never will), their outcomes will still be wildly different. Any parent of more than one child can attest to this.
Yes, society should protect equality of opportunity, but *not* equality of outcomes.
Re: (Score:2)
The answer, in my opinion, is not a different economic system, but regulation. Capitalism (an economic theory) does not address ethics or criminal behavior. That belongs to a different field, Law and Government. These work together to keep Capitalism from running amok. Or at least, they should.
Private property has failure modes (Score:2)
Capitalism has failure modes where "Private property" makes "Competition" and "Freedom of choice" irrelevant. Some of these failure modes are called monopoly and cartel.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Monopolies and cartels should be regulated and/or abolished. US law does this, but it hasn't been followed in recent years. That's not a failure of capitalism, but a failure of government.
Re: (Score:2)
Capitalism is not good or bad, it does not think for itself. Capitalism is like a fresh new puppy you just took home, you can either let it do whatever it wants and deal with the shit on the floor, the constant barking, aggression, etc.
Or you can accept it for it is and give it discipline, rules, boundaries and set an example of behavior. Capitalism, private property these things do not exist in nature, these are human created social constructs. Collective delusions.
We can and should ask ourselves what
Obligatory Chuchill (Score:2)
You love capitalism because the elite have groomed you to love it through propaganda.
Capitalism is like democracy - it's the worst form of economic system except for every other economic system that has every been tried.
Re:AI is not the problem. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Capitalism is what lifted most of humanity from total poverty. Poverty is the default in history, but the growth fueled by the raise of capitalism is what caused the default to change.
Does unfettered capaitalism cause problems: Big time.
Does any other system we know off cause more problems: Yes
The only other system that seems to be able to somewhat compete is a the social democratic systems where there is capitalism, but it's extremes are clamped down on. The end result is clearly less innovations and total
Re: (Score:3)
Capitalism was a shit show for ordinary people until the socialists with their unions got involved.
The reality is you can't have "pure capitalism" (that is, capitalism without real socialism - not "Anything the government does is socialism" socialism, but "workers owning the means of production" type attitudes that promote worker power) unless you want your country to be the hellhole that it was in the 19th Century or China is in the 21st.
Re: (Score:2)
"Capitalism is what lifted most of humanity from total poverty."
That's not true, it's horticulture and agriculture that have allowed people to live with enough for large societies to thrive. Capitalism requires poverty, and in recent history (in the US for example) it has only guaranteed that there will more and more of it as all fundamental functions necessary to maintain life are monetized and stripped away from availability. But go ahead and blame "unfettered capitalism", or "crony capitalism", a.k.a. ac
Re: (Score:3)
That is the misconception.
Almost anyone in the most developped countries has it much better than anyone before the industrial revolution.
I will now use the examples from the social democratic contries rather than US as healthcare is a mess in US, but most of this applies to US too, as even in US the poor still get more than back then.
First that Healthcare:
-Child mortality back then was more than 30% now way below 1% due to things like vaaccinations, antiobiotics, sanitaion and healthcare in general. Even ri
Re: (Score:2)
I guess point 2 applies...
> You love capitalism because the elite have groomed you to love it through propaganda.
Re: AI is not the problem. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Because the alternatives to capitalism are much worse.
Honestly, it's not that capitalism is bad, it's that capitalism run amok, with no checks and balances, and no restraint, is just as bad as any other "ism" run amok, with no restraint. Capitalism with a healthy mix of socialism and a good amount of regulation can be amazing. Unfortunately, America turned its back on regulation, and even legalized capitalism as the main driver of politics (Citizens United), essentially blackballing restraint and turning the entire country into an experiment in unbridled greed
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It's actually a huge problem that people buy AI generated patterns on Etsy not knowing they're AI, and then are frustrated when the pattern doesn't work or doesn't loo
What if customers said no to big box stores? (Score:2)
The question and answer are very similar.
Many people hate big box stores because they are impersonal and put small businesses out of business, leading to layoffs. AI is also impersonal and puts some people out of work.
So how has the resistance to big box stores worked out?
There's your answer to how resisting AI will work out.
You are confusing Users and Customers (Score:2)
Users are, after all, the product, even if they pay, they don't matter. The people who matters are the investors, and investors demand AI.
Users on the other hand will pay for anything roughly meeting their needs. Since we live in a world of oligopolies, you can virtually abuse them to the point of them being barely able to work with it.
I mean a good example is Miro. It's a virtual sticky platform. You use it to place virtual stickies onto a virtual canvas with multiple users at the same time. It's slow, but
Re: (Score:3)
Users are, after all, the product
Users are not the product as they are not being sold as slaves.
Users are more like natural resources, they exist to be exploited.
Like natural resources, corporations give zero fucks about which users are destroyed figuratively or literally, because there are more users behind them to exploit. We literally have industries selling products known to kill people which prove this point. The government has whole bodies of law which permit them to exist and to continue to sell their products.
Since we live in a world of oligopolies, you can virtually abuse [users] to the point of them being barely able to work[...]
This part is exactly t
They can't (Score:4, Interesting)
This is why enshitification happens. Companies can do whatever they want because if you get pissed off and go to one of their competitors their competitors doing the exact same thing because it's owned by the same people
What we have here is a classic Chesterton fence. It's offense that you didn't know why it was there but you took it down anyway. Americans did not fully understand why antitrust law was important but we kept voting for pro corporate politicians who took it down. And this is the result.
Re: (Score:2)
No you having a few stocks in your 401k does not make you a shareholder. Not in the sense that you have any say in policy.
It's a very clever way for those big firms to silence opposition. Now nobody has a strong incentive to pursue real regulation, and the abstraction provided by the 401k admin makes it harder for the little people to mount an organised movement, even if they did want to.
AI decsiison (Score:2)
Ink blot test (Score:2)
What does an AI try to portray? It's just a random calculation. It's empty. Sure it will maybe make music to play in the background or a picture to fill a spot in a wall.. We have that kind of 'factory art' for a long time and sadly a lot of people buy it. But art that resonates with people? Nothing more than an ink blot t
Luddites tend to fail (Score:2)
The quotes mentioned aren't "AI is providing a worse experience", they are "oh, no, we are losing our humanity". If your only reason to not use a technology is because you're worried that lamplighters will lose their jobs, then you will always be part of a small minority.
Windows recall is a clear IP threat (Score:5, Interesting)
No AI content certification? (Score:2)
I've been meaning to look into this, but may be a good discussion topic here - is there any sort of certification or agreement out there?
You know how there are badges on websites about non-profit transparency, etc, is there something like this for AI content?
I design websites for a living, and currently refuse to use AI tools. I also have my own websites with informational content, and zero AI usage, intentionally.
Anyone seen anything like this?
(And yes, if there is, it'll probably go to shit...haha..but fo
Ai has Done More Harm than Good (Score:3)
Who benefits? (Score:3)
So far the only group I see benefiting from this "AI" push are shareholders because of the promises (false, exaggerated?) being thrown around by their respective corporations. Everyone else is being affected negatively. In my opinion this is the largest snake oil operation ever put forth and it seems that people are starting to catch on, thankfully.
Re: (Score:2)
I fully agree. This AI hype is more bombastic than the last few ones and it looks like it will actually deliver even less.
Opt out in Office 365 and Google apps, price hike (Score:3)
Both MS and Google have forced AI on their customers along with a convenient price rise for Office 365 and Google apps. They know very well that only a percentage of their users will actually use these features, so it's an excuse to squeeze more money out of us. In both cases it is possible to opt out and get back to the old prices for now, but neither company makes it easy. But we opted out in both cases, which does send a message of "no, thanks" to the companies. Hopefully others do as well.
Here's how to do it:
Office 365 - https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmjtsai.com%2Fblog%2F2025%2F0... [mjtsai.com]
Google Apps - https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fgsuit... [reddit.com]
Organic? (Score:3)
Depends on framing and whether some people perceive AI products as sufficiently dangerous or otherwise unacceptable.
If they do, there is probably a market, much like organic foods can sell at premium compared to "conventional" foods.
Offtopic - that "conventional" in English is a crafty shift of meaning btw, since "conventional" should, really, mean - produced without additional human-made processing, that's what "organic" is. A better name would have been "artificially induced" or some such, but - marketing :)
Easy answer (Score:3)
If AI makes a product or service better, it will be accepted
If AI is seen solely as a cost cutting measure or if it makes the product or service worse, it will be rejected
Re:Easy answer (Score:4, Insightful)
So far, LLMs can only do "cheaper" and it always comes at a reduction in quality. There is no reason to expect this to change.
But seriosuly, the signs of the current AI hype comming to an end are getting stronger.
is it bad in this use case? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is a bit more to a language that just "not making errors". I guess you never really learned a language.
Turns out, AI slop is just not that great (Score:2)
Sure, the occasional dumb narcicist may quite like LLMs, but most people want a bit more meaning and genuine interaction in their lifes. Chatterbots cannot do that. Such a surprise.
Who cares? (Score:2)
I am not am employer, nor am I a work for hire company. I buy a product or subscribe a service to get a result. Whether that result is human generated or AI generated is irrelevant. The only thing I care about is the quality of the outcome.
That "artist" sounds like the type of person who would have fired his accountant in the 70s for using a calculator.
Virtue Signaling vs Actual Follow Through (Score:4)
Lots of people like to say the right thing, until it gets inconvenient.
The number of “progressives” I know who still eat at Chick-fil-A because “it's just so good”, and listen to Spotify despite them ripping off musicians to funnel money to Joe Rogan, says this has zero chance of happening.
A recent client of mine specifically requested... (Score:2)
"No Artificial Intelligence" in the spec for a new project. At first came as a bit of a shock to me since I've been slowly warming up to the idea of "AI" being a useful tool as a developer (not just in code analysis/completion, but for use in client projects). Upon further thought, the project in question relates to safety when it comes to vehicle calibration/diagnostics after a collision, and rather than rely on "AI" to make decisions, I'd much rather have a human in charge of creating the rulesets that
Re: BOYCOTT art companies that allow AI. AI=COPYPA (Score:2)
The most favourite company of commercial artists?
The same artists who defend Adobe practices, licensing, and pricing to their death?
The artists who you couldn't pry Adobe out of their dead hands, who blindly contributed all their art for Adobe to use as training data, are now going to just say no to AI?
I wonder who is generating all the AI slop? Adobe subscribers would be my first guess.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do we consider an AI algorithm the same as a human biological brain? I would consider a human trained and an AI trained as very different, very distinct things and should be treated differently, legally morally and ethically.
Re: BOYCOTT art companies that allow AI. AI=COPYPA (Score:2)
Why treat them differently? I'm genuinely interested in the answer. To me, it's the same process, just one is in its infancy and the other has been refined over millions of years.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. The last few AI hypes were bad enough, but this time the greedy assholes behind it have lost all sense of proportion. Well, the crash will just be even more spectacular.
"How can I again fail to help you today?" (Score:2)
Thanks for going for funny, but I have to concur with the moderators that you didn't really make it...
Maybe the topic is too intrinsically unfunny for humor? I've actually started trying to craft a joke about my first interactions with a new "AI chatbot" my phone company (Rakuten Mobile) recently created for "support". The amount of data is overwhelming, so perhaps I need to use an "enemy" AI to analyze the discussion to find the humor? At least I won't have to pay the hostile chatbot 30 pieces of silver to
Re: (Score:2)
The AI results from Google are often way off or strange and I invariably give those results a thumbsdown.
AI is still too stupid and single-tracked.
Re: (Score:3)
The AI results from Google are often way off or strange and I invariably give those results a thumbsdown.
AI is still too stupid and single-tracked.
Give them an occasional thumbs-up too, just to mess with their stats. It's not your job to train their models for free (see my sig)
Re: What "what if" (Score:2)
requirements.
answer one in ten phone calls.
all the others can wait.
and wait.
inform caller that if they go to the businesses counter that their request will be granted.
ya.
that sounds about right.
consider.
what is the carbon footprint of phones using energy for waiting for assistance.
I smell an ig nobel
Re: What "what if" (Score:2)
"people" can say no to AI and all you're doing is shifting this to better AI models where you can't tell the difference, and countries like China where they'd just use AI anyway and sell it to you....
Face it, traditional "artists" (whatever that is) have lost.
Re: What "what if" (Score:2)
Traditional artists are people.
Re: (Score:2)