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

591–600 of 608 posts

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

#591

Post by fl4regun »

a96 wrote: post #583
fl4regun wrote: post #297

My laptop has a microsoft copilot key built into it. It is hardware mapped to a hotkey that inputs win+shift+f23, instead of just being the right ctrl key. Why would anyone want this?

Why would Microsoft want their product logo forced front and center and easy to accidentally trigger in their OS that they also force on people?

I am not complaining about them changing the logo on the key, I'm complaining they made a messed up hardware based hotkey and killed right ctrl for no reason, instead of just making right ctrl in windows trigger copilot.

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

#592

Post by salawat »

bobbob1921 wrote: post #448
throwaway64ddFg wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

If you've not used a commercial IVR stack before, most of them are at least semi-integrable with major CRM's while being implemented as a combo of Finite State Machines and Automated Voice Recognition systems intended to be used for customer facing data entry to originate tickets or entries for Call Center workers. The issue though, is most of those workers are minimally trained in ultra rigid scripts, and the market sees those people as a cost center, so most places do everything they can to minimize the layout to operate. The time I was in charge of one, I bent over backwards, including learning the Vendors tool, and telling them to hands off, in order to get our call center experience tolerable. I wasn't even officially part of the Call Center department, but the guy implementing it was doing so horribly it became a hot button issue that escalated it's way up to me.

Since the experience, I have grown increasingly hostile to most "Automated customer Support Systems". (Capitalization intentional). The intent is generally to minimize the human contact available to the customer.

It's ASS all the way down. The customer has very little choice or input in the matter.

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

#594

Post by beej71 »

ashleywr wrote: post #567
beej71 wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This reminds me that I have to write my dentist. They replaced their beep answering machine with an AI chatbot, and the experience is horrible. I just want to say what I want, have it transcribed to text, and then have a human do something about it. It. I don't want to have to slowly explain to a bot who is just going to do the same thing. Plus, the first time you encounter it, it doesn't identify itself as a bot for…

My best guess is the logical next step is Apple or Google giving you a (paid) AI Assistant who will call up and make that appointment for you. Then it's just AI talking to AI, which I guess is still better than having to make the call ourselves which I appreciate, but it's certainly silly sounding.

In this case it was to settle a bill. And I know I'm channeling a bit of Leonard McCoy here, but there's no fucking way I'm letting an AI take money out of my bank account. :)

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

#595

Post by danaris »

eejejq wrote: post #586
danaris wrote: post #568

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For many of them, the quarterly results are the product. Thanks to Milton Friedman, far too much of the manager class now believe that the end goal of their job is to make shareholders rich, and the fact that they have to do that by making a product or providing a service is something along the lines of a necessary evil.

lol this is a half truth. Say I start a firm and I want to destroy the incumbent through innovation but can’t pay a very high wage - will the best people who are needed to compete and beat said incumbent forgo a lower salary for the mission? I don’t know. And that’s part of the problem - you can’t have your cake and eat it too.

I think that all of us have spent too long living in a time of rising inequality.

When you know that things are expensive compared to salaries, and that this is gradually getting worse, it's absolutely a natural and expected (though not universal) response to try to seek the best compensation you can obtain.

If, on the other hand, you know that your compensation will be enough to ensure you have a good, solid standard of living, both now and into the foreseeable future, because wages are high compared to cost of living and the power of labor is strong, then it's going to be much, much more common for people to be willing to take that reduced overall pay in order to do work they feel is more meaningful.

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

#596

Post by trollbridge »

pesus wrote: post #432
trollbridge wrote: post #11

We are adding AI features to our product and being very careful to disguise them and make it not “feel” like AI. Our customer base about 70% can’t stand AI, 20% doesn’t care, and 10% thinks it’s the greatest thing in the world.

Why would you add features you know 70% of your users would hate? The fact that you have to hide them from your users because of this should probably be a sign to reconsider.

They're optional features nobody has to use and which, if designed to not look like cheap vibe-coded chatbots, that 70% of the userbase would actually quite like. So far in the closed beta, everyone has liked them, even the people I know don't like AI.

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

#597

Post by trollbridge »

inigyou wrote: post #585
pesus wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you add features you know 70% of your users would hate? The fact that you have to hide them from your users because of this should probably be a sign to reconsider.

Because the users only hate them if they know they're AI, otherwise they love them

What the 70% figure tells you is that people just don't like bad AI, bad implementations, dark patterns, and chat bots.

For example, we aren't going to be doing some terrible RAG-style support "chat" anytime soon.

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

#598

Post by partyficial »

lbrito wrote: post #309
inigyou wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that's the rare exception. Almost nobody prefers an artisanal chair over one from IKEA, especially when they see the price tag.

Everything about that analogy is wrong. Everyone would prefer a nicer handmade chair (if not by the price difference). Chairs are not comparable to OPs cards; writing on a card costs nothing (but intent, which seems to be in low stock these days). Finally, factoring in the real operating cost, ongoing capital costs, and environmental/social externalities, the AI chair in your example would cost something like 1000x a…

> Everyone would prefer

far from true. I (and many others) prefer cookie cutter things, because I know what to expect, and due to quality control of big companies.

e.g. hotels > airbnb, amazon essentials > etsy hand-knit, Lays chips > Ray's chips

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

#599

Post by foobarchu »

lacy_tinpot wrote: post #357
foobarchu wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've actually been told by my teacher friends who used to complain about too much AI that their high school students are starting to reverse course here, and are now bullying each other for actual or perceived AI use. It's become cringe.

Assuming that's even remotely true, nerds were bullied for their use of computers. Now no one uses computers because only loser nerds use computers...

The claim was that the AI use is rampant in youth right now. I countered that with (real) anecdotal evidence from those who have the best view into the problem. You have not refuted me in any way.

If anything, you're implying a completely independent outcome that AI goes the way of computers and becomes truly ubiquitous DESPITE being unpopular with kids right now. That would be supporting what I suggested.

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

#600

Post by ux266478 »

RiverCrochet wrote: post #590
ux266478 wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Elitism doesn't logically counter an argument. If you're yearning for the skill that makes you elite, then work to get it. If you want the output of skill without the work, you're fake, and it will show in your output. There's many that don't care and you can make money off of them. The smart will see being on the wrong side of this as being exploited. No one can really stop you from exploiting the un-smart, but ever…

Firstly, the premise was about a fallacious delusion of elitism, not about elitism of-itself, which was so trivially inferrable from the context I'm not sure how you missed it. Secondly, yes a premise isn't an argument. You know there's an entire rest of the post beneath all that which you conveniently ignored? That's where the argument actually lives. You regurgitated it while pretending you disagree. You can probably avoid that in the future by actually reading what you're replying to and trying to understand what's being said, rather than firing off a ridiculous strawman reply after reading 2 sentences.
Post reply on HN