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

Pomelli

blog.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 185 posts

Re: Pomelli

#71

Post by lrvick »

nashashmi wrote: post #68
nkrisc wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People can choose to not consume crap they don’t need. They won’t, but they can. Advertising is now just worthless noise to me because I generally don’t buy stuff anymore but what I need. I can’t imagine why anyone would buy most of the crap I see advertised, but they do. Halloween was a recent example: how many tons of plastic shit for costumes was shipped from China only to be thrown away the next day? How much can…

> They won’t, but they can. That is the problem with this advice. “Can choose not to” is code to stop someone complaining. “Just don’t use it then”. It sounds equivalent to the “love it or leave it” slogan used in the 70s in America. We don’t leave. We fight. We don’t stop using. We openly and publicly criticize

Leaving it is the right choice though. The corpos will never care about you. I consume no ads, or Google software, and still do anything I want in the tech world.

Re: Pomelli

#72

Post by Oarch »

I'm so dead do all this generic hype lexicon: unlock, supercharge, revamp, disrupt etc, etc.

Re: Pomelli

#73

Post by impossiblefork »

Culonavirus wrote: post #57
jwr wrote: post #55

This is depressing. We are already meat in the google ad-serving machine that tracks us, profiles us, gives us "free" stuff (gmail, anyone?) in order to feed us advertising. Now even that advertising will be AI-generated. The human is reduced to the ultimate consumption machine, to be fed stuff paid for by advertisers and generated by machines.

> The human is reduced to the ultimate consumption machine. Question is, if the AI bros are right about a "new industrial revolution", will there be consumers to consume if all the wealth is concentrated in the top 1-2% of the population? (the owners of AI hardware and software)

If that happens it won't be the AI people who benefit. The wealth will be concentrated among the present capital owners. Even many top AI experts who contributed critical research won't become rich.

You'll see the wealth concentration you talk of, but it'll be completely different people who get this wealth, maybe even people who own businesses where wages are a large outlay.

Re: Pomelli

#74

Post by 0xDEAFBEAD »

realusername wrote: post #63
jwr wrote: post #55

This is depressing. We are already meat in the google ad-serving machine that tracks us, profiles us, gives us "free" stuff (gmail, anyone?) in order to feed us advertising. Now even that advertising will be AI-generated. The human is reduced to the ultimate consumption machine, to be fed stuff paid for by advertisers and generated by machines.

Personally I'm okay with that as it weakens the argument that ads are content, a dubious argument often used by ad companies.

One of the best arguments in favor of ads is that high-quality ads act as an honest/credible signal that a firm is a serious business offering a serious product. Through making the production of high-quality ads cheap, people who are truly passionate about their small business will be "disrupted", and scammers/fly-by-night operations will be "supercharged".

Re: Pomelli

#75

Post by jeremyjh »

vbezhenar wrote: post #70
ddalex wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I keep seeing this worry about "who will consume?!!?" This is entirely unfounded - the AI will develop its own marketplace and AI will consume. The question is, will be there anything left for humans to consume ? will we survive ?

Buy acre of land, plant potatoes, raise chicken, pay your tithe to your landlord. People will survive, for sure. Not all of them, but enough.

There won’t be any such leases if machines can make more productive use of the land than a potato farmer.

Re: Pomelli

#76

Post by FinnLobsien »

nkrisc wrote: post #58
jwr wrote: post #55

This is depressing. We are already meat in the google ad-serving machine that tracks us, profiles us, gives us "free" stuff (gmail, anyone?) in order to feed us advertising. Now even that advertising will be AI-generated. The human is reduced to the ultimate consumption machine, to be fed stuff paid for by advertisers and generated by machines.

People can choose to not consume crap they don’t need. They won’t, but they can. Advertising is now just worthless noise to me because I generally don’t buy stuff anymore but what I need. I can’t imagine why anyone would buy most of the crap I see advertised, but they do. Halloween was a recent example: how many tons of plastic shit for costumes was shipped from China only to be thrown away the next day? How much can…

Would you make the same argument for smoking?

I think we’re in a world so dominated by the attention economy and things optimized to hook us in that it’s hard to just say “I quit”.

Re: Pomelli

#77

Post by reaperducer »

Culonavirus wrote: post #57
jwr wrote: post #55

This is depressing. We are already meat in the google ad-serving machine that tracks us, profiles us, gives us "free" stuff (gmail, anyone?) in order to feed us advertising. Now even that advertising will be AI-generated. The human is reduced to the ultimate consumption machine, to be fed stuff paid for by advertisers and generated by machines.

> The human is reduced to the ultimate consumption machine. Question is, if the AI bros are right about a "new industrial revolution", will there be consumers to consume if all the wealth is concentrated in the top 1-2% of the population? (the owners of AI hardware and software)

Question is, if the AI bros are right about a "new industrial revolution", will there be consumers to consume if all the wealth is concentrated in the top 1-2% of the population?

Who cares? That's two quarters away. What matters is that I got my Lambo and my speedboat today. Let the poors worry about the future.

Re: Pomelli

#80

Post by bko »

keiferski wrote: post #41

I’ve seen many small businesses do well on TikTok and Instagram by eschewing all fancy graphics and technology, and just talking into their phone’s camera like a normal person. “Hey I’m Joe, I just opened a cafe down here. It’s always been my dream, etc.” The more quirky and human the video, the better it does. I know this new tool looks to be for static graphics; but I do think the same thing applies. Not using AI-g…

I think you might be seeing guys who do that well so it's a bit survivorship bias. For most, if you just record yourself talking for 1m and watch it back as a video it's incredibly painful and awkward. The filler words, tangents, weird pauses. It really made me have respect for great speakers
Post reply on HN