Live data from Hacker News

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

wpvip.com

441–450 of 608 posts

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

#441
post #402

I have yet to see AI being successfully onboarded in brands where I feel it actually benefits me. QuickBooks has annoying suggestions that shift the whole UI and cannot be disabled. Misclicks now happen. The AI in my robot vacuum is... just a label? I don't want to talk to it. I want it to deterministically clean my stuff. My TV got an upgrade to Gemini. Why? I don't talk to the TV, and it's in my face. (I'm think ab…

How do you use gemini on your TV? Type questions with the remote, 3 words per hour?

Surprisingly, my remote has a microphone.

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

#442
post #121
post #13

This is the problem with all of the recent “AI” crap that has been shoved into our devices. We have had ML features for years and it provided real benefits but most people did not know or care how it worked, it just did its job in the background without the underlying tech being shoved in your face. Everything AI though is the opposite, it wants to focus on the technology first and the benefits second. It is actively…

They've regressed for a long time and there's no signal to consumers that "AI" is anything that "fixes" or brings back what was working. The example I always give is when google maps got speech recognition, I could ask it "Hey google, what's the E.T.A." and it would magically respond with how long till I arrive. Somewhere along the line it broke and for years now it doesn't work... the last time I tried my phone actu…

[flagged]

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

#443
post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They care more about short term cost reduction than long term effects of upsetting customers. Even moreso if there is a lack of significant competition, as is often the case for companies doing this, since customers can't just easily switch to something else.

I think it is not cost reduction. AI is not cheap. I think it is mimetic and FOMO driven, they think the press release packed with em dashes will 10x their stock price or something.

it's cheaper than hiring/training/providing benefits and career growth to real humans, at least for now

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

#444
post #6

Oh no. It can't really be because "AI" frequently means "we fire employees to make more money. And by the way, we don't actually care about quality". Right?

That mentality existed well before AI. See out-sourcing.

Out-sourcing does still involve humans, to be fair. If the premise is that "humans prefer human output" then outsourcing would still be preferred, even if it is preferred less.

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

#445

>No customer or user wakes up and says, ‘I hope I get to talk to a chat bot or an AI agent today This is so true. I led the implementation of an AI customer service agent and even though management thinks it’s a great success the metrics tell a totally different story. Our customers hated it. I haven’t seen anything in tech that is hated more. Before you think we did a bad job with our solution, I can tell you we wen…

Part of the problem is that even if you did a good job it doesn't really matter because the rest of the industry isn't, so no user wants to give you a chance

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

#446

>No customer or user wakes up and says, ‘I hope I get to talk to a chat bot or an AI agent today This is so true. I led the implementation of an AI customer service agent and even though management thinks it’s a great success the metrics tell a totally different story. Our customers hated it. I haven’t seen anything in tech that is hated more. Before you think we did a bad job with our solution, I can tell you we wen…

People say jobs with the "human touch" will stay relevant after AGI. And I'm like have you seen customer service? I can't even find the phone number anymore on amazon

Whats implied there is that the "human touch" will become a luxury.

I have a hard time seeing a future where retail doesn't bifurcate even further into ultra low margin, happy-path optimized megastores and concierge-style high touch boutiques. Places like Crutchfield that split the difference nicely seem to be a dying breed.

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

#447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same thing happened to me at my dentist! Infuriating! I suspect someone is selling these to dentists in particular. Dentists have cash to burn on these kinds of solutions, I guess.

I suspect it's more accurate to say the private equity that bought out dental practices everywhere have the cash to burn. At least for now.

Dental practices are notorious for being badly run: dentists often have great technical skills but are lacking in people skills, business skills, common sense, etc. Seyle in The Stress of Life talks about early research about how many dentists struggle because of this.

Dentists frequently get talked into MLM scams (which they have a lot of money to lose on) or Scientology management training (which they have a lot of money to lose on.)

Given all that many of them might be happier if they work for private equity, and that trend is stronger with more women entering the field. I dunno if women are really worse at running a business but I think they are better at recognizing that they're not good at running a business when they're not.

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

#448
post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Android does this fairly well for me - it will list out the options as they are spoken, and you can click on them directly to type the number. I believe (but haven't seen this recently) it will pre-render the options before they are read if it has knowledge of that phone tree.

But watch out, as our menu options have recently changed!

Good point, but seriously why are the menu options so frequently changing?? (or is that just more BS to delay you further)

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

#449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All people I know hear when they hear AI is - they are automating art, there are layoffs incoming, they want to build a data centre next to me that will make my electricity costs go up, they are automating the consumer help call center. The positive views of AI are really increasingly concentrated amongst some of the tech heavy population.

Honestly, what are the positive viewpoints of generative AI in the end? Are there others major ones than the following? * My vibe coding machine goes brrrrt and that's all I care about * My college essay cheating machine goes brrrt and that's all I care about * My custom waifu/porn-generating machine goes brrrt and that's all I care about * The concept of AI is drawing all the investor money and that's all I care abo…

Here's one: AI democratizes the ability to produce software, which has mostly been an arcane craft wielded by a priestly class. Now anyone, if they know what they want and it isn't too complex, can talk to AI and get working (if not also janky) software in a very short amount of time. Hopefully this breaks the grip that platforms/large corporations have on personal software and the internet.

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

#450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What many people hear is "made with the tech that plagiarizes, leaves artists (and soon you as well) without a job My unpopular opinion is that many or maybe most people don’t care about this. They don’t care about where the content came from or if the artists get paid for the work. If they can get something (an answer to their question, some output that finishes their homework, some writing for a work assignment)…

Downloading artists' songs is not equivalent to people using AI to generate sounds/images and claiming they are an artist. I really don't have a problem with people using AI to generate sounds/images for their own personal enjoyment, but taking what it generates and then telling others that you "made this" or are an artist is deception. > artists shouldn’t expect to be paid for their digital output The issue is the n…

> people using AI to generate sounds/images and claiming they are an artist.

> but taking what it generates and then telling others that you "made this" or are an artist is deception.

I think there's a fundamental problem with this line of argument, which is that it's naive elitism that's been historically leveraged since the 20th century at minimum. "Your music was made on a computer? That's not real music! All you do is push some buttons!" with equivalencies for all mediums of digital art.

There's absolutely a reductionism I think that happens with naysaying generative AI, where it's almost a kind of naive agreement with the VC hypetrain. There's a belief that effective usage of AI is just dumping 20 words into a text input and the maximal quality it's capable of gets spit out 5 seconds later. It's the same variety of reductionism as above where ignorance of how wide the domain is precludes the ability to understand where the skill ceiling is (or what is even involved). The idea that this isn't even the tip of the iceberg nets an expectation that "advanced" AI usage extends to random prompt engineering at most.

Problematically, "AI generated" doesn't really say much about the process, intent, or really much of anything beyond a specific computational architecture being involved at some point of the workflow. It could mean they slapped a tweet-length stream of consciousness into a shitty web prompt, or it could mean constructing a complex pipeline, combining processing steps and multiple models like hotpatching synths, using an intuition built upon thousands of hours of learning their tools, using fine-tuning adaptations that they spent even more time building, and carefully analyzing and responding to the end result. In the former case, I don't think there's much artistry involved and it exclusively produces crap. I think it's a massive disservice to the latter however, to suggest it doesn't involve extensive artistry, or that the paradigm of the tools themselves strip the notion of art away.

I understand wholly why the first case gets primacy, but if we're to philosophize about these tools then I think we have to fully account for the second case.

Post reply on HN