Using AI in the marketing is a sign you don’t have much else to show for. People see through this. Your product should be strong even without having to mention AI.
this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2024
329 points (98.8% liked)
Programming
17476 readers
141 users here now
Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!
Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.
Hope you enjoy the instance!
Rules
Rules
- Follow the programming.dev instance rules
- Keep content related to programming in some way
- If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos
Wormhole
Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Using AI in the marketing is a sign you don’t have much else to show for.
To me it's a sign that you have spyware included, will depend on a perfect network infrastructure, and will stop working in 2 years.
But my guess is that for most people it's a sign the product is made by some psychopath-like company like Facebook.
That and LLM confidently making up "facts". And since LLM is the AI with most direct exposure to the user, this is what happens.
I believe there’s use of LLMs beyond being “fact bots”. I see it more as a “universal text processor”. Like you already have a text, and you want to have it written in a different style or language. Or extract pieces of information from a text to something machine readable. Or maybe convert instructions in natural language to machine instructions.
All the facts are at hand. It just converts the given information to something else.
At work, we recently talked about AI. One use case mentioned (by an AI consulting firm, not us or actually suggested for us) was meeting summaries and extracting TODOs from them.
My stance is that AI could be useful for summaries about topics so you can see what topics were being talked about. But I would never trust it with extracting the or all significant points, TODOs, or agreements. You still need humans to do that, and have explicit agreement and confirmation of the list in or after the meeting.
It can also help to transcribe meetings. It could even translate them. Those things can be useful. But summarization should never be considered factual extraction of the significant points. Especially in a business context, or anything else where you actually care about being able to trust information.
I wouldn't [fully] trust it with transforming facts either. It can work where you can spot inaccuracies (long text, lots of context), or where you don't care about them.
Natural language instructions to machine instructions? I'd certainly be careful with that, and want to both contextualize and test-confirm it works well enough for the use case and context.
Natural language instructions to machine instructions? I'd certainly be careful with that, and want to both contextualize and test-confirm it works well enough for the use case and context.
I’m imagining it to be quite limited. Mostly to talk with appliances in a way that’s more advanced than today. Instructions like “gradually dim down the lights in living room until bed time”, or “dim down the lights in the living room when the we watch a movie on TV”.
we had a plenty of more deterministic tools for parsing human readable text to machine-readable long before llms
Well duh. Stupid people are scared of the phrase, and clever people are annoyed by it. That just leaves the Belgians
That sounds like a dutch joke.
Sounds like something a Belgian would say 🧐
Do you know how copper wire was invented? Two Belgians found a penny on the ground.
The Belgians are fine, but we don't want the Dutch!
I honestly see thing touting AI to be an absolute gimmick, and beyond untrustworthy. So this definitely tracks. It’s been shown that AI isn’t at a level where using it for anything isn’t beneficial, in fact it’s the contrary. Marketers think that folks will see AI as making all things better, but if google’s recent implementation is any indicator, it’s something to steer clear of for the foreseeable future.
It’s been shown that AI isn’t at a level where using it for anything isn’t beneficial, in fact it’s the contrary.
Maybe you're thinking of something more specific than me, but I don't think that's the case. What is being called AI is a broad field.
I think what Opus was able to implement for high packet-loss voice transmission is exceptional.
I also find Visual Studio in-line-inline-completions to be very useful.
That's far from the typical Chatbots and whatnot though. Which often suck.
I was on Amazon the other day buying a replacement light.
A little banner on the item description advertised the new 2024 model. It has “ai integration” of some sort. Same price. I actively chose the older model. I can’t be the only one who thinks like this.
I can’t be the only one who thinks like this.
I read an article recently that said this is true. Will try to find it.
you know... I think I saw a comment on here not too long ago about this kind of thing as well.
Yeah, I also never buy products that would work perfectly fine with a local network but that somehow require a connection to remote servers and whatnot.
Beside, most of these Ai labels are just ol’ plain algorithms lol
AI in the product name or description makes sure that there is not a single chance I buy it.
It makes filtering products and companies easier
But it increases investors likelihood to invest... That is all that really matters these days.
Does it still? Looks like the bubble is about to explode
Well, that is how bubbles form. People will stop investing while/after it has burst. That is basically the definition of a bubble bursting.
Yes, same thing with "smart", or "app controlled". What I read with any of those terms is "spies on you".
I hope they don’t start using ML or my name, otherwise I’ll be ruined.