Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sixty percent of US consumers say 'AI' in brand messaging is a turnoff

wpvip.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 608 posts

Re: Sixty percent of US consumers say 'AI' in brand messaging is a turnoff

#291

Post by vanuatu »

jordanb wrote: post #155
torben-friis wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>while consumers just want to know "what is this product going to actually do for me," and care less about whether it is implemented with the buzzword du jour. I would say that undersells the (not neutral, actively negative) impact of AI to many. What many people hear is "made with the tech that plagiarizes, leaves artists (and soon you as well) without a job, and makes things generic and bland!" You might as well ma…

Also the product itself is likely to suck. One thing that the tech world has become obsessed with is increasingly non-deterministic products. Products that do what they think what the user wants to do rather than what they actually want to do. They've also fallen in love with changing things for the sake of change. I had a friend buy a Tesla and one thing that ruined the car for him is that the menu would change over…

can you blame them? nondeterministic products have resulted in some of the most successful businesses of All Time (tiktok, reels, google search, product recommendations)

Re: Sixty percent of US consumers say 'AI' in brand messaging is a turnoff

#292

Post by jollyllama »

Waterluvian wrote: post #16

AI feels like “quick and cheap at the cost of quality” so I completely get why consumers would dislike it while business people love it.

Hand-crafted has always been the gold-standard of high-status. AI content is inherently low-status.

To the extent that AI adds value, it is being captured, rather than going back to the consumer.

Re: Sixty percent of US consumers say 'AI' in brand messaging is a turnoff

#293

Post by dh2022 »

Aurornis wrote: post #278
dh2022 wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The selection is still shitty though, even with no ads. Piracy is a superior choice.

> Piracy is a superior choice. And there it is. Netflix was just an example. There are other services.

Sorry, my post was not clear. Today piracy is a superior choice. The bedt product Netflix offered me was when they shipped DVDs - their selection was immense (on par with Blockbuster). I could have pirated then (I was going once a year to my home country where DVDs were sold on open air markets) but I did no do that because was too much trouble.

When Netflix started to be online only I tagged along, and it was OK-ish - selection was not that great but but price was not big either and once in a while I would watch a movie. Today ads are very intrusive and the cost for no ads is $20 / month- which is not worth it for me. Compared to this, piracy is clearly a superior choice.

Re: Sixty percent of US consumers say 'AI' in brand messaging is a turnoff

#294

Post by thatguy0900 »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #259
Twirrim wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kids of varying ages that I've spoken to often talk about the environmental impact (mind you, I live in a fairly liberal/left leaning part of the country), among other things. At the risk of over generalising, I mostly hear a lot of shit talk from younger generations, distrust from millennials, and more excitement and interest from Gen-x-ish and older. As with many things, there's a certain level of hypocrisy to the…

AI has been a culturally radioactive PR disaster of truly epic proportions. Aside from whether or not it works, there are so many established catastrophically negative talking points - steals from creators, destroys the environment, is coming for your job - I'm not sure its reputation can be recovered.

Does it's reputation even matter? Everyone with money is pushing it, heavily. The government is even stepping in to stop any kind of punishment when it's factually shown that they are stealing water. The people will learn to tolerate it whether they like it or not, eventually.

Re: Sixty percent of US consumers say 'AI' in brand messaging is a turnoff

#295

Post by Arainach »

dbalatero wrote: post #65
ios-contractor wrote: post #25

Then why did openAI make gazillions in revenue

Do you have access to their financials?

For the purposes of this discussion, we all do: https://www.wheresyoured.at/exclusive-openai-financials/

Re: Sixty percent of US consumers say 'AI' in brand messaging is a turnoff

#296

Post by rustystump »

torben-friis wrote: post #92
dbalatero wrote: post #5

I could be wrong, but it feels like one issue is that AI seems to cater more as a signal to venture capital and the internals of the tech industry in a lot of these products, while consumers just want to know "what is this product going to actually do for me," and care less about whether it is implemented with the buzzword du jour.

>while consumers just want to know "what is this product going to actually do for me," and care less about whether it is implemented with the buzzword du jour. I would say that undersells the (not neutral, actively negative) impact of AI to many. What many people hear is "made with the tech that plagiarizes, leaves artists (and soon you as well) without a job, and makes things generic and bland!" You might as well ma…

It also signals low effort or subpar quality too. Hey look we slapped gpt on our healthcare app. Is it useful? Not really but the ceo is excited about it

Re: Sixty percent of US consumers say 'AI' in brand messaging is a turnoff

#298

Post by dominotw »

smcl wrote: post #116
torben-friis wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>while consumers just want to know "what is this product going to actually do for me," and care less about whether it is implemented with the buzzword du jour. I would say that undersells the (not neutral, actively negative) impact of AI to many. What many people hear is "made with the tech that plagiarizes, leaves artists (and soon you as well) without a job, and makes things generic and bland!" You might as well ma…

Another signal that prominent mentions of "AI" in your marketing sends is "this product is going to shoe-horn AI into this somehow". Plenty of products that people use every day at home or in work - Google search, Facebook Messenger, Instagram, Jira, and more - have had some kind of AI-first redesign. In each case some AI functionality has been placed prominently either somewhere that you accidentally press it or in…

i blame microslop for poisoning public perception with copilot. god that was so awful.

Re: Sixty percent of US consumers say 'AI' in brand messaging is a turnoff

#299

Post by kjkjadksj »

frollogaston wrote: post #226
jordanb wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also the product itself is likely to suck. One thing that the tech world has become obsessed with is increasingly non-deterministic products. Products that do what they think what the user wants to do rather than what they actually want to do. They've also fallen in love with changing things for the sake of change. I had a friend buy a Tesla and one thing that ruined the car for him is that the menu would change over…

The touchscreen is the only thing that's kept me from leasing a Tesla the past 8 years.

Not the hitler salute?

Re: Sixty percent of US consumers say 'AI' in brand messaging is a turnoff

#300

Post by vanuatu »

nerdjon wrote: post #200
nonethewiser wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uhhh kind of. What you say is definitely true of some products but it's funny, because the EXACT same criticisms were levied against machine learning. - "ML is such a buzzword. Everyone is trying to shoe-horn it into their product." - "Why are they putting 'machine learning' in their hero section? Just do the thing well. ML is an implementation detail." - "You dont even need ML for this. Simple linear regression woul…

There is a difference though, all of the talk about ML was almost exclusively in the tech circles. Or at most there was a quick reference to "ML" when a feature was announced but it wasn't shoving "ML is doing this THIS" in every UI it could. Sure we could argue that there were times that ML was likely not really necessary, but it was still largely invisible to the user what the mechanism was. I think about autocorre…

While I agree that AI is more salient, I feel like there was a ton of press about the "Algorithm" especially around social media and content, which is essentially "ML"
Post reply on HN