3 ms·

In the same way, you should stop mentioning mobile, apps, the web, and other past over hyped stuff. That doesn't mean you should stop investing in doing those t

In the same way, you should stop mentioning mobile, apps, the web, and other past over hyped stuff. That doesn't mean you should stop investing in doing those things well. It just means that you need to focus on the value you deliver to your customers through doing these things well. Everybody has an app. Having an app is not a distinguishing factor any more. In the eighties and nineties, companies slapped the word digital on just about anything. Especially on things that were very much analog. That doesn't mean computers flopped; they are very useful. It's a meaningless distinction to add the digital to a brand. AI is the same thing. It's a means to an end. You need to be talking about what you deliver with it. Not about how you deliver it. In the case of CNN that hosts this article, a lot of their content probably is at this point passing through some LLMs at this point. They don't have to advertise that of course. If they do their job right, you barely notice this. Arguably, they should be doing a lot more with AI than they are doing already. The news business is fiercely competitive. Margins are small, and they have to produce more content with fewer people. LLMs can help them do that.

nottorp 2y ago
> Having an app is not a distinguishing factor any more. Having an app is "fuck you, i don't want to install another app" these days...
- madaxe_again 2y ago
  It has been for decades. Also, people don’t know what the hell they want or are talking about - so often people tell me they have no apps on their phone, they don’t like apps, they’re bad and wrong - and then I see they’ve got Facebook, instagram, 10 candy crush clones, etc. “what about those?” “Those aren’t apps. Those are things.” My mother has total disdain for “social media users” yet spends six hours a day on Facebook. She doesn’t see it as social media. “It’s more of a virtual parlour” So yeah. People don’t know what the hell they want or are talking about.
  - will5421 2y ago
    They know what they want, just not what they’re talking about.
    - lazide 2y ago
      Or they know what they want, and what they’re talking about - in the sense of denial and projection anyway.
  - nottorp 2y ago
    > has total disdain for “social media users” What's social media today anyway? I've been told the likes of whatsapp or discord are also social media. But they're just chat apps to me because you use them to chat with other people and they don't have automated systems that cram cat pictures down your throat.
    - prmoustache 2y ago
      > and they don't have automated systems that cram cat pictures down your throat. Yes they do. It is your aunt who is crazy about cats. Nearly every family has one.
      - nottorp 2y ago
        It’s a crazy aunt on WhatsApp, it’s not an engagement algorithm. Does your Facebook even show you your aunts posts? I have a feeling it’s stopped showing friends and relatives for me ages ago.
        prmoustache 2y ago
        Sorry that was just a tongue in cheek joke.
    - vonunov 2y ago
      In recent years I've been running into more and more people who will say all sorts of things are social media on the basis that they let you talk to other people. This has happened in reference to reddit comments, web forums, Discord, Telegram . . . There seem to be some neo-cyberpunk LARPers taking interest in stuff like Usenet and IRC for kewl points. I wonder if these are also "social media". Of course, it doesn't help that pretty much everyone has been saying "social media" for years when they almost always meant "social networking".
- pleb_nz 2y ago
  I prefer apps and desktop apps when they are available. They feel and work nicer mostly than web based. But we live more and more in a browser world and there is less and less choice and I understand I must move with the times.
  - andybak 2y ago
    > But we live more and more in a browser world and there is less and less choice and I understand I must move with the times. Wow. Has everything gone full circle again already? I thought we were all still complaining about the death of the web and the app-ocracy.
  - nottorp 2y ago
    > They feel and work nicer mostly than web based. The "apps" i'm talking about are just the web site packed into a crap and resource hungry web view...
    - worksonmine 2y ago
      And requires access to my contacts for some reason.
      - nottorp 2y ago
        Most of the time it's just incompetence, they import the 1823 js libraries and ask for all the permissions their libraries could use in that corner case that happens once every 1760 years.
  - prmoustache 2y ago
    I prefer apps when they work mostly offline and don't try to send my private data to various third parties. I tend to prefer the browser which allows me to control a little bit more what it does for everything else.
roshankhan28 2y ago
i get what you are tryig to say, but i guess what OP meant was if every company ties up AI in their product just because they are calling Chat GPT API in the backend, then every product is essentially the same. i guess with time developers will also get to make and train inhouse AI models if in future it gets more affordable
fhd2 2y ago
I agree, and it's probably what the article is about. These terms have meaning for a little while, then they get abused (see your "digital" example), than they become meaningless and even sound antiquated. I agree with a lot of the siblings though: "AI" features themselves are so often seemingly just pushed on users, and it doesn't look like they were thought through, well implemented or tested. My main annoyance with this these days is that absolutely every app and device seems to have decided they need to push an "assistant" on me. I personally hate the assistant UX, and I wish I didn't have to close so many banners for apps to leave me alone with that. I get that they're trying to show their investors that their "AI features" get "engagement", but it seems... desperate. Even if they don't call it "AI", but just by the value it supposedly provides (e.g. "assistant"), it still annoys me quite a bit. I wonder how other consumers (especially non-technical people) feel about that part. TFA doesn't really seem to go into it.
- loa_in_ 2y ago
  The article is based on: we did some stats on ads and sales of various brands and found that certain words impacted sales negatively in last quarter. That's it.
resonious 2y ago
My air conditioner's instruction manual had a whole "we have an app!" thing on it. I installed it for funsies. I noticed pretty quickly that there was no button for changing the temperature setting. All you can do is turn the thing on or off. Turns out, there's a button for "advanced settings" that takes you to a webpage. On that webpage, you have to log in again, but once you do, you can change temperature, create timers and do all kinds of things. Completely insane design. I bet they built out the webapp first, then some PM type went in and was like "no, we need an app" and forced them to build a "native app". Then they ran out of time and just put a link to the website in the app.
edanm 2y ago
> AI is the same thing. It's a means to an end. You need to be talking about what you deliver with it. Not about how you deliver it. This is true, but AI is new enough tech that it is reasonable to say "this thing wasn't possible to build three years ago, now it is possible to build, and we built it!". That is definitely a good pitch to investors, and in some cases, directly to customers. That is not something you can say about mobile apps - like you said, it's not a distinguishing factor any more. But it is a factor for AI, in some situations.

nottorp 2y ago

> Having an app is not a distinguishing factor any more. Having an app is "fuck you, i don't want to install another app" these days...

madaxe_again 2y ago
It has been for decades. Also, people don’t know what the hell they want or are talking about - so often people tell me they have no apps on their phone, they don’t like apps, they’re bad and wrong - and then I see they’ve got Facebook, instagram, 10 candy crush clones, etc. “what about those?” “Those aren’t apps. Those are things.” My mother has total disdain for “social media users” yet spends six hours a day on Facebook. She doesn’t see it as social media. “It’s more of a virtual parlour” So yeah. People don’t know what the hell they want or are talking about.
- will5421 2y ago
  They know what they want, just not what they’re talking about.
  - lazide 2y ago
    Or they know what they want, and what they’re talking about - in the sense of denial and projection anyway.
- nottorp 2y ago
  > has total disdain for “social media users” What's social media today anyway? I've been told the likes of whatsapp or discord are also social media. But they're just chat apps to me because you use them to chat with other people and they don't have automated systems that cram cat pictures down your throat.
  - prmoustache 2y ago
    > and they don't have automated systems that cram cat pictures down your throat. Yes they do. It is your aunt who is crazy about cats. Nearly every family has one.
    - nottorp 2y ago
      It’s a crazy aunt on WhatsApp, it’s not an engagement algorithm. Does your Facebook even show you your aunts posts? I have a feeling it’s stopped showing friends and relatives for me ages ago.
      - prmoustache 2y ago
        Sorry that was just a tongue in cheek joke.
  - vonunov 2y ago
    In recent years I've been running into more and more people who will say all sorts of things are social media on the basis that they let you talk to other people. This has happened in reference to reddit comments, web forums, Discord, Telegram . . . There seem to be some neo-cyberpunk LARPers taking interest in stuff like Usenet and IRC for kewl points. I wonder if these are also "social media". Of course, it doesn't help that pretty much everyone has been saying "social media" for years when they almost always meant "social networking".
pleb_nz 2y ago
I prefer apps and desktop apps when they are available. They feel and work nicer mostly than web based. But we live more and more in a browser world and there is less and less choice and I understand I must move with the times.
- andybak 2y ago
  > But we live more and more in a browser world and there is less and less choice and I understand I must move with the times. Wow. Has everything gone full circle again already? I thought we were all still complaining about the death of the web and the app-ocracy.
- nottorp 2y ago
  > They feel and work nicer mostly than web based. The "apps" i'm talking about are just the web site packed into a crap and resource hungry web view...
  - worksonmine 2y ago
    And requires access to my contacts for some reason.
    - nottorp 2y ago
      Most of the time it's just incompetence, they import the 1823 js libraries and ask for all the permissions their libraries could use in that corner case that happens once every 1760 years.
- prmoustache 2y ago
  I prefer apps when they work mostly offline and don't try to send my private data to various third parties. I tend to prefer the browser which allows me to control a little bit more what it does for everything else.

roshankhan28 2y ago

i get what you are tryig to say, but i guess what OP meant was if every company ties up AI in their product just because they are calling Chat GPT API in the backend, then every product is essentially the same. i guess with time developers will also get to make and train inhouse AI models if in future it gets more affordable

fhd2 2y ago

I agree, and it's probably what the article is about. These terms have meaning for a little while, then they get abused (see your "digital" example), than they become meaningless and even sound antiquated. I agree with a lot of the siblings though: "AI" features themselves are so often seemingly just pushed on users, and it doesn't look like they were thought through, well implemented or tested. My main annoyance with this these days is that absolutely every app and device seems to have decided they need to push an "assistant" on me. I personally hate the assistant UX, and I wish I didn't have to close so many banners for apps to leave me alone with that. I get that they're trying to show their investors that their "AI features" get "engagement", but it seems... desperate. Even if they don't call it "AI", but just by the value it supposedly provides (e.g. "assistant"), it still annoys me quite a bit. I wonder how other consumers (especially non-technical people) feel about that part. TFA doesn't really seem to go into it.

loa_in_ 2y ago
The article is based on: we did some stats on ads and sales of various brands and found that certain words impacted sales negatively in last quarter. That's it.

resonious 2y ago

My air conditioner's instruction manual had a whole "we have an app!" thing on it. I installed it for funsies. I noticed pretty quickly that there was no button for changing the temperature setting. All you can do is turn the thing on or off. Turns out, there's a button for "advanced settings" that takes you to a webpage. On that webpage, you have to log in again, but once you do, you can change temperature, create timers and do all kinds of things. Completely insane design. I bet they built out the webapp first, then some PM type went in and was like "no, we need an app" and forced them to build a "native app". Then they ran out of time and just put a link to the website in the app.

edanm 2y ago

> AI is the same thing. It's a means to an end. You need to be talking about what you deliver with it. Not about how you deliver it. This is true, but AI is new enough tech that it is reasonable to say "this thing wasn't possible to build three years ago, now it is possible to build, and we built it!". That is definitely a good pitch to investors, and in some cases, directly to customers. That is not something you can say about mobile apps - like you said, it's not a distinguishing factor any more. But it is a factor for AI, in some situations.