I’ve seen reports and studies that show products advertised as including / involving AI are off-putting to consumers. And this matches what almost every person I hear irl or online says. Regardless of whether they think that in the long-term AI will be useful, problematic or apocalyptic, nobody is impressed Spotify offering a “AI DJ” or “AI coffee machines”.

I understand that AI tech companies might want to promote their own AI products if they think there’s a market for them. And they might even try to create a market by hyping the possibilities of “AI”. But rebranding your existing service or algorithms as being AI seems like super dumb move, obviously stupid for tech literate people and off-putting / scary for others. Have they just completely misjudged the world’s enthusiasm for this buzzword? Or is there some other reason?

  • slazer2au@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    108
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Hype brings investment money to the table. When an emerging technology appears, you can say we are looking to develop those technologies into our existing products and you will see a bump up in your share price.

    After a few years of failed products and the hype dies for the next thing you can never mention the old hype but keep the bump in share price.

    Think about 5-7 years ago, Blockchain was all the hype, 5-7 before then was Machine Learning and XaaS, before that was Big Data.

  • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    69
    ·
    2 months ago

    My understanding is that a lot of venture capitalist funding is driven by gut feel and personal connection. Like, they’ll tell you that they’re the vanguard of the future with a vision, but most of the time they’re just cliquey bros going “dude, sick” and burning money.

    There’s an anecdote in the book “the cold start problem” about how zoom got funding even though the guys funding it thought it was a solved problem, that a new video company wouldn’t go anywhere, but the zoom guy was their bro so they gave him millions of dollars.

    I feel like it’s possible some future will look back at this the way we look at feudalism. Just like, that’s such a bad system , why did people put up with it?

    • MolochAlter@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Just like, that’s such a bad system , why did people put up with it?

      Because hindsight is 20/20 and people had preconceptions back then that filled in the gaps, as they do right now.

      The gaps are and were actually full of nonsense like “he’s my buddy I’ll give him money” but people expect the process to be a lot more reliable and solid, because they think they’d be more careful with that kind of money, not realising that to some millions are pocket change (and nobody is careful with pocket change) and that others gamble with other people’s money and thus are a lot more cavalier.

  • betterdeadthanreddit@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    ·
    2 months ago

    Suits heard about this secret sauce called AI that can cut down on the need for those pesky humans that are always looking for handouts and luxuries like a living wage and benefits. The consumer will have to accept it when the only choices they’re offered are varying flavors of the same shit.

      • ivanafterall ☑️@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        And then when it doesn’t work, you blame other people and fire humans anyway and give yourself a raise for saving the company money. Stock prices rise.

    • ripcord@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      Can confirm this is absolutely true. The number of meetings I’ve been in where execs are salivating…

      Whereas in reality so far the payoffs are projected to be something like 2%. Not counting the costs of developing and running the AI stuff.

  • jet@hackertalks.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    ·
    2 months ago

    Attracts investors.

    When people are evaluating companies, and see a company missing out on the current trend, how is that going to factor into their valuation of the stock prices?

  • The Hobbyist@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    2 months ago

    Because the boss thinks it sounds cool and doesn’t want to be the only kid in the block without an AI product to sell.

  • Just_Pizza_Crust@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago
    1. OpenAI struck gold, NVIDIA followed suit, and everyone else bought shovels hoping to get investors even though they have no plans on striking gold (developing useful AI).

    2. Would you like to buy a timeshare to the moon? If we all buy, you’ll be able to sell your spot for 10x the price! Don’t wait! Spots are limited!

      • Just_Pizza_Crust@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        2 months ago

        Nvidia sells the hardware (shovels), but also develops portions of the software to make it run more efficiently, like OpenAI. Nobody else but Microsoft seems to be actually developing software, though AMD is slowly working towards having comparable performance.

      • Phen@lemmy.eco.br
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        We kinda need to adapt the saying now. When someone finds gold, you need to sell wood and iron for all the shovel makers that will show up.

  • gencha@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    2 months ago

    Money was already spent. The hype companies were backed by big capital in their early days. Now the people who provided that capital want to cash out and they want their winnings. So you will have AI shoved down your throat on every piece of media channel those people also own. AI is a hype term that appears periodically since before the 2000s. This is nothing new. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_winter

    LLMs are toys that sparkle for a brief moment. Their value is laughable compared to their cost.

  • pH3ra@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    2 months ago

    They believe that demand and offer in the market is an egg and chicken situation, so right now they’re force feeding us the offer waiting for the demand to adapt

  • abigscaryhobo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    2 months ago

    A lot of business people also think that AI is a “force multiplier” meaning that if they use it they can get more done in less time. Anything that can do that is basically a money printer at the business level, which is why all these execs and companies are so excited about it.

    The problem is it’s not or at least not reliably proven to be so. All these companies are jumping on board thinking “shove some AI in there and get 20% growth” when in reality there’s no backing behind it working like that. And that’s why a lot of customers are turned off, because from the consumer side, AI is just sloppy unoriginal junk. But on the business side they just see “Productivity is up” never mind that the productivity is garbage quality.

  • Moah@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    2 months ago

    It’s a “don’t want to miss the ship” thing where companies have to invest in whatever’s trending in case it becomes successful and gives you an advantage. If they wait until it’s proven, they might miss a competitive advantage (having to start learning after others). In the case of AI it’s even more important since the promise sounds actually useful (the summarize anything quickly bit at least), unlike, say, NFT. At least that’s kind of how it got explained to me at one of my jobs.

  • Zak@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    2 months ago

    Think like a venture investor.

    A small chance of huge growth via new technology can have a big payoff. They expect most companies to fail and are more worried about missing an opportunity than losing money in a single bad investment.

    Nobody is quite sure where AI technology will be in ten years, but if it’s big, it’s going to make people who got in early very rich. It doesn’t matter that it sucks now; the web sucked in 1995, but it made people who got in (and out) at the right time very rich.

  • EnderMB@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    2 months ago

    It’s a symptom of shareholder-driven development.

    Many companies pushing AI have had huge layoffs, and haven’t launched anything worthwhile in years. Many of these companies have a metric fuck-ton of data, and already do some kind of AI (they probably have had LLM’s for years too). This way, they can spend money and make it look like they’re doing groundbreaking stuff to ensure shareholders are happy.

    They’ll continue to do stealth layoffs of people outside of AI, until the hype dies down, and they’ll move to the next grift - after laying off all of their AI folks.

    • Hexbatch@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      I think AI helps the smart consumer avoid companies and products that are on the rocks, or bad .

      Obviously the monopolies are not in trouble, but it’s very helpful to see smaller companies waving the AI banner like a going out of business flag, or an enshittification decal.

      In my particular line of work I use developer tools, and the above has been so helpful in showing me trends of actually useful products