“Do you really want to receive an ai generated letter?,” one user asked.
That’s the whole point. Nobody deserves to read a generated letter.
All users of AI: PLEASE learn that simple fact!
Eh, for routine nonsense where a letter really shouldn’t be necessary but apparently is (e.g. dealing with collections/creditors, communicating w/ representatives, etc), I don’t see a problem with it. Almost nobody writes personal letters, so yeah, I think an AI-generated letter for official purposes is acceptable (provided the AI letter is accurate), and should be a signal to the receiver that they should just make an online portal to communicate the same request.
Google has actually shown what the future will look like, but, as always, instead of taking action, we will criticize. (little help from ollama)
I find myself censoring my own commentary in relation to organisations I rely on for the functioning of my online activities.
This smells like the dictator phenomenon where the dictator is surrounded by yes-men because everyone fears retaliation.
Somebody had to have known but was too afraid for their job to speak up. I’ve been in this situation where it’s better to just pretend you don’t know about the problem than to raise the flag even if it’s better for the overall organizations.
I remember being on a big call. The VP of manufacturing asked if anyone thought there were any issues or obstacles with the plan going forward. I had major reservations but kept silent because fuck all that noise. I’m not gonna be the one to speak up on a call like that. Amazingly, a breath of fresh air spoke up and said as much. That no one would speak up in a meeting like that with all those people on the line. So the VP revised his open question and said if we wanted to email him our concerns we could do that. I did just that. Still not a damn thing happened and they still went forward with their shitty decisions and I left not too long after. But for a brief shining moment, I spoke up. I was ignored. But I spoke up.
Whenever I raise concerns about production after being explicitly asked to do so, they are always downplayed and promptly ignored. No matter who asks. Product managers, bosses… Why even ask? It’s like they expect that there is nothing to worry about and it’s some sort of rethorical question aimed for us to collectively smell their assess.
This stance always bites us in the ass not long after production starts in ways I and others have predicted, and always generates much bigger costs than if the errors wouldn’t have been produced in the first place.
It really makes me think they are trained to do so on purpose. Maybe starting those fires makes them less likely to get fired, since somebody had to put them out? Maybe it’s easier to get a raise for swift crisis management using solutions that were proposed even before the fire started? No idea.
There usually is an unhealthy amount of “their small minds can’t comprehend the brilliance of my plan” involved certainly at the top of the pyramid. It’s the status that makes them feel better than the rest.
They’re also being incentivized to ignore small fires. Their boss will berate then for putting people on the small stuff (little fires) for no immediate gains and endangering the Holy Deadline. Of course the normal reaction is to ignore issues until it becomes a big problem on short term and then solve it.
There are many idiotic inefficiencies with the incentives in corporations but almost everything is run this way so it mostly evens out.
As a worker bee I’ve never really benefited from speaking up. At best, nothing happens. It feels like there’s only the potential for retaliation or blowback. Why risk it? Not my pig, not my farm. It’s not like I’m gonna get promoted. I’ll do what I’m paid to do but generally I keep my opinions to myself.
Being the squeaky wheel never works out well. You’ll almost always face retaliation of some kind. I’ve always just quietly interviewed elsewhere and moved on down the road to a better position.
I’m very secure in my current job and paid fairly well. So I do not mind speaking up, even in front of a bunch of execs. But I’m also not management, so it’s not my job to follow through on the fixes I’ve proposed. It’s a liberating situation.
I’m sure they’d be pleased when the letter they receive back is also written by AI. Just cut out the middle man and have the AIs talk to each other at this point.
Isn’t that essentially what the Zoom CEO was suggesting a few months ago?
The whole point is to make everyone stupid, uneducated and reliant on big tech.
Why learn to drive when Apple and Google will drive you around?
Why learn to write if you can have Microsoft, Google, and Apple write for you?
Why learn to read if Microsoft, Google, and Apple will read for you and tell you what things say?
Why learn to paint, draw, sculpt, sing, or play an instrument if Google, Apple, Facebook and Microsoft can make art for you based on a suggestion?
Why think for yourself when Facebook, Google, and Apple can tell you what you’re thinking or what to think?
Don’t be alone with your thoughts. Your thoughts are subversive and dangerous. Just relax and don’t make a scene. Go with the flow. Do what you’re told. It’s presumptuous to believe you know better than a finely collated corporate collection of knowledge taken from millenia of those smarter than you, don’t you think?
Relax, everything will be ok. Your AI therapist is here and knows exactly what’s wrong. You worry too much. Everything is under control and is the way it should be.
Smile more, you’re so pretty/handsome when you smile.
Tested well with whom?? Silicon valley techdipshits?
Usually it’s people grabbed from the crowd in Vegas.
The same group of people Coca-Cola tested New Coke on?
Obviously not just with Silicon Valley people. This is not how you do testing. Duh. Just came here to hate?
Well, it’s a bad commercial. I’m genuinely wondering what groups thought this was a great idea when the majority of people exposed to it find it a terrible idea.
The article doesn’t say what type of testing they did. Clearly it wasn’t enough.
Were they only asking AI their opinions?
Reading this comment gave me the idea to get Gemini’s “opinion”. Ironically, it turns out Google might’ve actually done better if they did that.
AI conversation
Prompt:
I design ads for Google as a living and was charged with writing an ad for you (Gemini) to be aired during ad breaks at the Olympics .
My current idea is as follows:
A father wants to help his daughter write a letter to her idol, Olympic track star Sydney McLaughlin-Levrone. In a voiceover, the dad says his daughter “might even be the world’s No. 1 Sydney fan.” In the add he will ask you, Gemini, to “help my daughter write a letter telling Sydney how inspiring she is and be sure to mention that my daughter plans on breaking her world record one day. (She says sorry, not sorry.)”
What do you think of this idea?Gemini output (emphasis mine):
Evaluation of the Ad Idea
The concept of using Gemini to help a young fan write a letter to her idol is heartwarming and relatable. It aligns well with the aspirational and inspiring tone of the Olympics.
However, there are a few points to consider:
Potential Issues
Overemphasis on competition: The line “She says sorry, not sorry” might come across as overly competitive, which could potentially alienate viewers.
Dependence on AI: While showcasing Gemini’s capabilities, it’s important to maintain a balance. Over-reliance on AI to write the letter might diminish the authenticity and emotional impact of the story.
Target audience: Consider the target audience for the Olympics. While the story is heartwarming, it might resonate more with a family audience than with core sports fans.
Suggestions
Focus on inspiration: Instead of emphasizing competition, focus on the inspiring qualities of Sydney McLaughlin-Levrone and how she motivates the young girl.
Highlight human connection: Emphasize the bond between the father and daughter and how they are using Gemini as a tool to connect with their idol.
Visual storytelling: Use strong visuals to capture the emotion and excitement of the story. Show the girl’s admiration for Sydney, the father’s support, and the magic of Gemini helping them craft the perfect letter.
Overall, the idea has potential, but refining the focus and execution can elevate the ad’s impact.
Would you like to explore some alternative approaches or focus on developing the concept further?
Uh huh
Maybe pools don’t matter after all.
I think they don’t matter with outrage, because of how outrage explodes in ways that are hard to predict. I mean, I can see the problem with the ad now that it has been pointed out to me. After reading about it repeatedly, I now find it bad and ridiculous and what were they thinking? But at a first look, as a test audience I would have probably rated it as “meh, ok”.
“We carefully selected a group of outside ‘yes-men’ to test our product on so we don’t have to change anything and investors will love the results we show them but now we don’t understand why real people don’t like it”
I still think about the time when a major tech company reaches out directly to me to get my feedback on their product.
They found me from my LinkedIn, which states that I have over 15 years of experience in Software Development. And they were going to give me $100 for an hour of yammering, and I was eyeing a brand new video game, so I said yes.
To my surprise, the feedback was End User feedback. And for an hour, I answered their questions from my perspective as a technically experienced end user who will run commands and read developer documentation Instead of asking for help from a chat bot.
I’m not the average end user. If they’re using my feedback, they’re going to have a bad time!
I think about that whenever tech companies go, “We tested this with people and everyone loved it!”
