10 ms·

Used Meta AI, now Instagram is using my face on ads targeted at me

305 points by amrrs 2y ago

lulzron 2y ago
Things that feel illegal will probably become illegal someday, but they think it's fine because, for now, it's not illegal.
- taco_emoji 2y ago
  > will probably become illegal someday Probably not for four years, at least
- npteljes 2y ago
  Nah. Street View was also a big hubbub back then. People are not even mentioning it anymore. >Things that feel illegal will probably become illegal someday Also, if you think about this phrasing for just a second, this is the chilling effect. Suppressing expression due to the anticipation of negative outcomes.
  - miltonlost 2y ago
    > Nah. Street View was also a big hubbub back then. People are not even mentioning it anymore. Didn't StreetView start blurring people when they ask? Seems like people don't mention it anymore because the privacy issue was mitigated.
    - npteljes 2y ago
      Some was mitigated, but I don't think that faces and plates were what had the biggest bang about it. It's a complete, 360 capture of a large part of public places, with people still being clearly identifiable, correlated with satellite imagery (which was pointed out as creepy and privacy-invading as well, upon its public release), resolution so high that you can read many texts, and you can still see in windows, into yards, all kinds of stuff. Wikipedia has a lengthy article about the different concerns. And yet, despite it feeling creepy and strange for many, it just became normal. People look up random places for fun, to hunt for their new home, for driving instructions, GeoGuessr is cool and has a league of its own... it's a creepy, risky new thing becoming part of life, that's why I brought it up. Smartphones could be another good example. As the joke goes, people in the 60s are afraid the government wiretaps their phones. Nowadays, they say: "Hey wiretap! Do you have a recipe for pancakes?" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Street_View_privacy_concerns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Street_View_privacy_con...
- nicce 2y ago
  That is the difference in the U.S. businesses vs. European. In Europe many companies think ethics even if is not illegal on paper. In the U.S. you need to get big before it is illegal, lobby for it and then pay fines. But fines are okay since you got big already.
  - tsunamifury 2y ago
    You must be joking right. This euro-superior tone that always pops up on here is delusional. Nestle. Shell Oil. I can go on... literally nothing about what you said is grounded in reality.
    - KaiserPro 2y ago
      I didn't know that nestle and shell had AI departments. Look, I'm not +1 the EU here, but having some level of legal protection against marauding corporations is good. Sure EU based companies are evil, but they can't be as abusive to normal people because they are constrained by a semi-functional legal system. The US used to have that as well, along with a functioning legislature.
      - tsunamifury 2y ago
        They do not. I can't even begin to explain to you how delusional this is. To be clear, I gave testimony to the NTHSA that the first Porsche Taycan was unfit for road driving due to extreme errors in the software architecture and in part got the CEO of Porsche fired. (Specifically error handling so laughably bad it caused the entire car to lock up at speed.) The EU only FOLLOWED grudgingly after the US demanded the recall. I am extremely aware of EXACTLY how risk-taking European companies are.
    - nicce 2y ago
      I am not joking. ”Move fast and break things” was even the motto of Zuckerberg back in day in Facebook. There are studies about it. Even Y Combinator has some history of admitting that they seek people like that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2579990 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2579990 I particularly meant tech companies. Of course, you can find unethical businesses everywhere.
- _DeadFred_ 2y ago
  "I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies: 1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works. 2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it. 3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things." -Douglas Adams in The Salmon of Doubt
slackfan 2y ago
[flagged]
- segasaturn 2y ago
  This isn't helpful or realistic. It's becoming more and more difficult to keep all your personal data private and function in society, which is all by design for companies like Meta.
  - slackfan 2y ago
    Posting on social networks can easily be seen as counterproductive to societal function these days.
- mt_ 2y ago
  Exactly, and the OP is not bothered about the content that is around him, somehow for him that must have been generated from thin air.
  - npteljes 2y ago
    People are not born with knowledge, however trivial it seem after knowing it. Same thing with privilege: different perspectives are earned with experience, not something that we start with.
- redeux 2y ago
  You’ve posted enough info here on HN for anyone to dox you (I won’t). Just thought it was relevant to your comment.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
aithrowawaycomm 2y ago
The content of the ad seems a bit on-the-nose given how much of Instagram is devoted to onanistic preening...
- KaiserPro 2y ago
  but its not an ad though? its meta-ai doing meta-ai things. Like if it was "buy this shit", or "your next location sponsored by bud lite" then yeah, but its not an advert.
  - miltonlost 2y ago
    "buy this shit" and "use this shit we made" is still an advert. Just because the person receiving the advert doesn't pay for the product themselves via cash and instead is paying via their personal data doesn't mean the post is not advertisement. The post is literally advertising MetaAI's product??? Do you know what an advert's definition is?
    - KaiserPro 2y ago
      When I saw the original link on bluesky, I didn't have time to look into it, I had assumed it was something like a post where a sponsor had paid meta to show a user a picture of said user in one of their adverts. Ie meta was being paid to whore out your likeness. > Do you know what an advert's definition is? according to this: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/advertisement https://www.dictionary.com/browse/advertisement its not. Look, I don't like meta any more than you do. But this is a service that is provided by them. Its not an advert, meta aren't making money from generating that user's likeness, or any other. I don't like GenAI, its going to ruin an industry I love, one I wanted to return to. When the bubble pops, its probably going to make me loose my job too. But this isn't an advert.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
  - pndy 2y ago
carlosdp 2y ago
Maybe I'm in the minority here, but this is kinda cool! As long as the user data doesn't leave the Meta ecosystem (no reason to think it does right now, the ad in question here is from Meta itself), it's not a privacy concern since only you are being shown those unique ads with you in them. Even if other advertisers start using the system, as long as the generated resulting images are never shared with the advertisers and are unique to each user, its just a futuristic way to help you "imagine" what having XYZ product would be like, which is what most ads strive to do. People have knee-jerk reactions to anything to do with ads because of the privacy concerns of yesterday, understandably. But if you actually step back and think about this, there's no reduction in privacy that I can see. If people are creeped out by it, I think they should maybe let people disable them with a setting. But in general, making ads more effective without giving advertisers more data about us is a great thing for the continuation of free amazing internet services!
- afavour 2y ago
  Man, I absolutely cannot disagree more. If a service wants to use my face in an ad they need to ask me for permission first. The gradual erosion of user autonomy we’ve seen online over the past few decades never ceases to amaze me. > People have knee-jerk reactions to anything to do with ads because of the privacy concerns of yesterday, understandably. Can you elaborate on this? What were the privacy concerns of yesterday that we don’t need to worry about today?
  - mysterydip 2y ago
    > If a service wants to use my face in an ad they need to ask me for permission first. But you granted us full unrestricted access when you agreed to page 58 section J of our latest terms of service. - meta lawyer somewhere
  - carlosdp 2y ago
    It's an ad only you can see, I don't see the harm. > What were the privacy concerns of yesterday that we don’t need to worry about today? The web/internet is a hell of a lot more private today than 10 years ago. Third party cookies are basically gone, mobile tracking is going out the door with Apple leading that charge, there are tons of relatively popular browsers and extensions that reduce tracking even more, there's enough privacy legislation that big companies have had to re-architect to preserve privacy as much as possible by default. Hell, if we're just talking about Meta, they literally nuked a thriving third-party developer API ecosystem to appease people's privacy concerns, out right.
hbn 2y ago
I'll play some defence for them here. You were playing with Meta's AI face tool, and now it's taken some results from that and swapped them in where ads would usually go. I'm assuming they don't do this if you just uploaded photos to Facebook/Instagram, you seemingly gave them a picture with the direct intent of them using it to make AI images. It doesn't seem that much different from when I'm typing a chat reply in Snapchat and it starts automatically suggesting stickers with mine and my friends' faces doing silly things with cartoon bodies. Or using my avatar to try and upsell me to their premium subscription. Don't give them a picture of your face to mess around with if you don't like them messing around using a picture of your face.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- matsemann 2y ago
  I instantly revoked Facebook's access to my photos a few years back, when it had taken photos from my camera roll and put it into my feed with a "do you want to share this"? I was browsing on the subway, and did not expect a medical picture of me showing up for everyone there to see. And I realized facebook as well could do what they wanted with my pictures.
- Hizonner 2y ago
  > Don't give them a picture of your face to mess around with if you don't like them messing around using a picture of your face. OK. In fact, I'll do better than that. I won't interact with any of their products or services in any way, including blocking all their domains several times over in various browser extensions. Snapchat, too. Actually I used my time machine to implement it already. How much surreal harassment will you people put up with?
  - lazide 2y ago
    Apparently, a whole lot more. I recently had someone stunned (actually, truly stunned) that I didn’t have Instagram. I spent 5 minutes looking at it years ago, and deleted it - and have never regretted that decision. Notably, I’m also unsurprisingly no fun at parties.
ssivark 2y ago
For starters, how is it not a violation (eg. "personality rights") to use a person's likeness without permission? As a further example, do we really want insurance companies serving ads using near and dear ones as potential disaster victims? This is really getting out of hand.
pta2002 2y ago
Jesus Christ the victim blaming in this thread is insane. This is why deepfake laws are needed. Sure OP used Meta AI, and consented, but if I did that I'd probably be consenting to using the picture _for that one session_, where I'm in control. Definitely not for this, they shouldn't be able to put this in their ToS.
- bingaweek 2y ago
  Companies need to be reminded that their operation is subject to our own ToS, the law, and it supercedes theirs. We can change it at any time and the sycophants defending any legal behavior aren't winning any favors. The behavior you see on HN playing defense for violations of privacy is disgusting, but I'm glad it's out in the open for everyone to see how far they'll go.
- mdanger007 2y ago
  Absolutely. The public doesn’t care what word games you play or what rights you allocate yourself in a terms of service if you pull off something shady you deserve all the bad publicity you get
- SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
  I don't think it's victim blaming to say that the linked Reddit post is missing critical details (and indeed any details) about what precisely is going on. I agree that it's quite bad if Meta did this without the user specifically asking them to do so.
- zombiwoof 2y ago
  Welcome to Humans 3.0
- 1shooner 2y ago
  > but if I did that I'd probably be consenting to using the picture _for that one session_, where I'm in control. You mean you you'd be wanting to consent to one session, while actually affirmatively consenting to something else. On one hand I agree there would be nothing wrong with limiting the scope of what is legally allowed in a ToS. On the other, I also think it's good that single parties can't just spontaneously wish away conditions of business agreements they don't like (although I imagine with a modicum of effort, you could modify that consent with Meta at any point). There's a comment in the reddit thread about how consent to Meta is invalid because Meta is essential to participating in modern society - basically saying that being a Meta user is a civil right. Bonkers.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
paxys 2y ago
Standard internet outrage bait. There are no ads in the photos. The person uploaded their photo to Meta AI's "imagine me" feature which generates photos of you in exotic situations, and now the company is...putting them in exotic situations. That's literally what it is for.
- dan_wood 2y ago
  Yeah not seeing it either, both images say, only you can see this.. Feels more like it generated more than the user asked for and now it’s just showing those images in their feed.
  - drivingmenuts 2y ago
    What nobody mentions about "only you can see this" is that "you" refers to ordinary users of the service and there is no mention if employees are included in that grouping. It has happened before that systems secure from the public were misused by persons with privileges within the organization. The obvious response is "well, yeah. So? They need it." but that's not how ordinary people, who don't deal with this daily, think. When they see "only you can see this" I think they take it literally. The computer is always watching and sometimes so are the people running the computers.
- bandinobaddies 2y ago
  It is still weird. Imagine you try out Photoshop online with your private photos. A few minutes later, you start seeing ads with those same photos edited in different ways. Even if those ads are visible only to you, it will still feel pretty creepy.
- graypegg 2y ago
  It's technically opt-in. You have to use their image generator, which requires agreeing to this "images appear in your feed randomly" feature implicitly. [0] You think you're just generating 1 photo, but you're actually signing up to a service that generates photos and adds them to your instagram feed. Even their help docs don't mention that nuance though. [1] It's not technically an ad, even though it mostly functions like one since the purpose of these images isn't anything more than bait to get the user to use meta ai more... I guess. [0] https://www.businessinsider.com/meta-ai-face-images-instagram-facebook-feeds-imagine-me-feature-2024-10 https://www.businessinsider.com/meta-ai-face-images-instagra... [1] https://www.meta.com/help/artificial-intelligence/imagine/?srsltid=AfmBOooirFpcpV53vVXtqVFmjdqzlFGDvjBwDHsNjH7zpQ9YZz5eYmUL https://www.meta.com/help/artificial-intelligence/imagine/?s...
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
Bengalilol 2y ago
The idea is kind of interesting, but who from Meta thought this would be cool to do such thing ?
- pesus 2y ago
  I wonder that in regards to just about everything they do.
- MarkSweep 2y ago
  Some growth team probably has goal to move a metric. This promotion is one of their experiments. If they move the metric, they can cite that in their performance review. If the promotion causes bad PR (see this thread) and none of the pre-launch reviews flagged it, they can then share what they learned with others in the company. They will say something like “lead a cross functional team to develop best practices for use of AI-generated pictures of a user in promotions” in their pronounce review. Either way, we get experimented on like lab rates and they get their bonus.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- radley 2y ago
  In an old-school yay internet sense, it's fun like amusement park rides taking your photo. But in a modern sense, it's just creepy.
- bitbuilder 2y ago
  Agree with your sentiment, but I'd take it one step further: why doesn't anyone calling the shots at Meta realize just how uncool it is to do such a thing? Which is the same reaction I had to their recent AI influencers. It speaks to their seeming inability to read the zeitgeist on the general public's attitude towards generative AI at the moment. I'm generally "pro AI", in that I think generative AI is incredibly interesting tech that can potentially be used to create some very cool (and maybe even helpful) things. But "AI" has become a dirty word among the people I know who aren't living in our tech bubble - uncool at best, and evil at worst. And every time I see something like this, I understand perfectly why they feel that way. Every new hamfisted or creepy attempt at inserting AI into everything by companies like Meta just digs the hole even deeper for people's perception of generative AI.
npteljes 2y ago
[flagged]
- miltonlost 2y ago
  > These are not ads, rather something that is generated natively by the platform, not leading anywhere else but the platform that the user is already on. Is this post Advertising a product? Yes, it is advertising a MetaAI product. Just because it's not an external ad, doesn't mean it's not an ad. Hulu shows me adds for other Hulu shows. This is an ad despite me not leaving that streaming site. What is an advertisement to you?
  - lbhdc 2y ago
    You are right, that is still and ad. Platform ads are really common for anyone running their own ad exchange. Sometimes its just to use up supply, other times its to meet in house goals.
  - npteljes 2y ago
    This is technically true, these are advertisements. But not what first come to mind when reading the title "Instagram is using my face on ads targeted at me", which would be third-party ads, so this is my point. The title is sensational, a play on this misunderstanding, rather than being substantial.
    - sweeter 2y ago
      No one said third-party ads, the description is perfectly accurate to what is happening. The knee jerk reaction to call it sensationalist is odd to me.
    - bitmasher9 2y ago
      My ick levels are about the same whether it’s used by third parties or just Meta. It’s a mega corporation using my likeness to manipulate my behavior for their own ends.
      - 2y ago
oglop 2y ago
What better way to increase the hyperreality needed to sell products then to have you in the ad! But also this is HN, so someone needs tk lecture you on “what you mean” and also remind you it’s their product you used and signed up for and signed your rights away too so it’s YOUR fault, or some such pompous condescending trash. I say, lucky you! I say, embrace the future! I say, plaster my face on adult diaper ads and sell them to me. I say, slap my face on that TRT ad from my podcast that I listen to in my lonely apartment to feel a connection to the world while I write code that “matters”. It’s a beautiful world.
ajkjk 2y ago
I'd like to see the "imagine what you'd look like if you exercised a lot more" or "had better posture" or "spent all summer in the sun" filters.
floatrock 2y ago
Opening up a whole new dimension of adtech personalization/engagement here... more evil brainstorming: - electronic billboards on the bus corner start doing this while walking down the street - your favorite peacock sitcom starts injecting your friends or recent vacation locations or friends' recent vacation locations on the main character's digital picture frame. Your buddy recently went to Sandals Resort in Jamaica? Now that's going to be emphasized in the unused screen real estate in the background of the bar scene to play on your fomo. - hell, sporting games already have digital billboards on the field barriers that are customized for different markets / broadcasters... why not customize them further for the individual stream
- trescenzi 2y ago
  There’s a scene in Minority Report of a mall and it’s basically this. The billboards scan you and then target you directly as you go by. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7bXJ_obaiYQ https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7bXJ_obaiYQ
  - radley 2y ago
    I've always wondered about that scene: does everyone around him see him in the ads as well? If so, that would mean that they're appropriating his image to sell to others. Perhaps they're laser / audio projections, so each person only sees their own ad.
    - goldenCeasar 2y ago
      Or worse: he needed to consent to a TC that allows they do use his image if he wanted to enter the shopping.
      - _DeadFred_ 2y ago
        Dude don't go posting ideas like this on HN. Come on man.
    - pndy 2y ago
grakker 2y ago
Any complaint that starts with "used meta..." just loses me. It's like, I stuck this needle into my left testicle and now that testicle hurts.
anon373839 2y ago
There is an interesting phenomenon going on here. On one hand, this is pretty mundane: a software tool you’re currently using shows you examples of ways to use the software. On the other hand, this does technically constitute an “ad”. What’s interesting to me is that some people seem to have a strong emotional reaction to the fact that it’s possible to describe this as “Instagram using my face in an ad,” even if the underlying event lacks the characteristics that would make that statement outrageous.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- tsimionescu 2y ago
  It's not mundane. The screenshots show Instagram displaying an ad for Meta AI. The user is not currently using MetaAI, they are using Instagram, so it's not at all "showing examples of ways to use the software you are currently using". It's more similar to Windows trying to sell you OneDrive through the Security Center, which is widely loathed, and recognized as an ad.
  - anon373839 2y ago
    > It's not mundane. The screenshots show Instagram displaying an ad for Meta AI. Well, there it is again: what seems to make it objectionable is that it fits a certain definition, rather than it exhibiting some intrinsically objectionable features. (Note I’m not criticizing this; I just find it interesting.) Since I don’t personally see this as an ad, I might describe it as “The screenshots show an example of output that the user can generate with Meta AI. The example shown isn’t emotionally enagaging, and it resembles placeholder content.” What would make this stand out for me is if Meta owned a tooth whitening business, and then used this placement to show a version of myself with a whiter smile. Or any of the other dystopian examples in this thread. But the one that actually occurred just doesn’t register for me as a breach of trust.
    - tsimionescu 2y ago
      "It's an ad" is shorthand for "this is trying to manipulate me to do/buy something". So the problem is not that it fits the definition of "ad", the problem, spelled out completely, is that they are using my likeness in something that is trying to manipulate me to do or buy something (do, in this case, since as far as others are saying, this is free of charge). Also, while the example shown does resemble placeholder content, it pretty clearly seems designed to evoke an emotional response, it seems designed to appear cool and futuristic. And regardless, people have a very high sensitivity to how their image is used. If I haven't given Instagram specific permission to use my image for something, it really really can't use my image for that thing. This goes beyond issues like copyright, it's a very basic human right to control how your own likeness is used.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
radley 2y ago
I think the common wisdom is that if you use a Meta product, they will try every possible form of social engineering to drive engagement. While this example was unexpected, it was predicted (Minority Report et al.) and is very much in line with their MO.
- frereubu 2y ago
  I'd say this is common wisdom on sites like HN, very much not outside the tech bubble. I can immediately bring to mind a good number of non-tech family members who would be completely freaked out by this.
  - radley 2y ago
    Or perhaps, they could find it entertaining. Particularly if they're comfortable consuming Meta services.
zjp 2y ago
That's the end of my account, then.
maartenscholl 2y ago
Meta AI asks permission to do this, but note that in some U.S. states personal publicity rights end upon death. Isn't it hilariously Wallacian that this technology can be used to make targeted ads featuring the viewers deceased loved ones?
nullc 2y ago
Facebook is doing a public service here by being overt. Anyone else would just quietly take your face and those of your contacts and use it to generate an endless stream of faces which are unambiguously not you, yet compellingly familiar. ...maximizing their brainwashing effectiveness while minimizing the ick factor and triggering privacy minding behaviors. A lot of harm is done in the world by parties adaptively keeping their invasive conduct at just below the level which will trigger retaliation, legislation, etc. Like databrokers will sell exceptionally private data to anyone with a few bucks, but it's only a 'data breach' when someone takes that data without paying. The existence of databreaches even provides nice plausible deniability for harms that arise from the business of privacy-invasion-for-profit.
trhway 2y ago
wait until they generate your, possibly long dead, grandmother (just using information of your and your parents faces and voices) convincing you to try that brand of pies.
- swayvil 2y ago
  There is the theory that all men are deeply, possibly unconsciously, sexually attracted to their mother. Which leads to the obvious AI generated porn.
  - lazide 2y ago
    That is an entirely different definition of pie than I’m comfortable considering.
lawgimenez 2y ago
I recently opted out of Meta’s AI, I’m not sure if this helps. > Object to Your Information Being Used for AI at Meta
fairytalemtg 2y ago
just a reminder that you are the product. Sorry to read this, it is frustrating to see our own face in feeds targeted at us. No clue who thought that would be a win.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
htrp 2y ago
It's only a matter of time before this gets put into the programmatic ad formats where you can do individual level targeting. The advertiser won't ever have to see your image as meta will offer it as a service. More importantly, just like things like pmax (google's current optimization product), your account manager will heavily incentive you towards running these AI campaigns.
- bobheadmaker 2y ago
  That sounds horrible, I hope we prevent this before seeing the negative impacts!
  - lazide 2y ago
    Honestly, what do you think the odds are of that happening?
benreesman 2y ago
My mom uses Instagram constantly but when she got hit with this she freaked out and said “fuck Facebook” out loud in public and put her phone away.
theptip 2y ago
That's... not an ad? User used Meta AI to touch up a selfie, now Meta AI is generating more selfies for you. I can understand the annoyance from cross-linking apps in the same way it's annoying to get the Threads popup in your feed, but really, this is utter clickbait.
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  I mean it really is an ad, just an ad for one of Meta’s own products. I wouldn’t be surprised if it is quite literally an ad where one team is winning the ad auction to place these into the feed.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- awinter-py 2y ago
  kind of an interesting question -- are product nudges ads? like when there's a button to use a paid feature which pops up on top of a different button, is it an ad? it's not third party.
  - rainonmoon 2y ago
    When a TV network airs promos for its own shows, is it an ad?
    - Brian_K_White 2y ago
      Yes.
    - p1necone 2y ago
      I remember being utterly baffled by this as a kid at other peoples houses. "Let me get this straight, you pay a bunch of money for 'special' TV channels that say they have no ads, and you still have to watch ads? What kind of insane horseshit is this?". Put me off non free to air TV for my entire adult life until streaming services became a thing, and you better believe I'm immediately unsubscribing from those the second they pause a video I'm watching to show me promos or ads.
duskwuff 2y ago
> Imagine yourself reflecting on life in an endless maze of mirrors where you're the main focus. This feels almost a bit too on-the-nose. But no, apparently it's real?
trilbyglens 2y ago
I really hate ai generated images of real people. If we thought Photoshop was bad for body image issues this is like putting that effect on heroin. I hope there's a massive backlash against this AI shit tbh. Leave it to meta to find a psychologically toxic application for any given technology.
jk808 2y ago
So, I had a terrific loss of the love of my life. I don't know how, but am seeing ads that literally resemble her likeness and it's happened more then once. Not look alike but her. Once I found out photobucket was training its AI on users photos, I removed them all and uploaded them to Google photos and now on youtube I'll see an add for a college and there she is dressed up graduation dress and colors of the college (a local) college.its like these evil companies are rubbing it in my face I'm thinking of getting a flip phone my heart is broken and continues to be everytime she pops up in an ad even though I know it's impossible to be her, the data analytics companies know of us through whatever our unique IDs are, picture scans or whatever the case and now they are breaking my heart daily and it's been over a year and I'm still mourning barely making it thru my days only to have her keep popping up how evil

305 points by amrrs 2y ago

Things that feel illegal will probably become illegal someday, but they think it's fine because, for now, it's not illegal.

taco_emoji 2y ago
> will probably become illegal someday Probably not for four years, at least
npteljes 2y ago
Nah. Street View was also a big hubbub back then. People are not even mentioning it anymore. >Things that feel illegal will probably become illegal someday Also, if you think about this phrasing for just a second, this is the chilling effect. Suppressing expression due to the anticipation of negative outcomes.
- miltonlost 2y ago
  > Nah. Street View was also a big hubbub back then. People are not even mentioning it anymore. Didn't StreetView start blurring people when they ask? Seems like people don't mention it anymore because the privacy issue was mitigated.
  - npteljes 2y ago
    Some was mitigated, but I don't think that faces and plates were what had the biggest bang about it. It's a complete, 360 capture of a large part of public places, with people still being clearly identifiable, correlated with satellite imagery (which was pointed out as creepy and privacy-invading as well, upon its public release), resolution so high that you can read many texts, and you can still see in windows, into yards, all kinds of stuff. Wikipedia has a lengthy article about the different concerns. And yet, despite it feeling creepy and strange for many, it just became normal. People look up random places for fun, to hunt for their new home, for driving instructions, GeoGuessr is cool and has a league of its own... it's a creepy, risky new thing becoming part of life, that's why I brought it up. Smartphones could be another good example. As the joke goes, people in the 60s are afraid the government wiretaps their phones. Nowadays, they say: "Hey wiretap! Do you have a recipe for pancakes?" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Street_View_privacy_concerns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Street_View_privacy_con...
nicce 2y ago
That is the difference in the U.S. businesses vs. European. In Europe many companies think ethics even if is not illegal on paper. In the U.S. you need to get big before it is illegal, lobby for it and then pay fines. But fines are okay since you got big already.
- tsunamifury 2y ago
  You must be joking right. This euro-superior tone that always pops up on here is delusional. Nestle. Shell Oil. I can go on... literally nothing about what you said is grounded in reality.
  - KaiserPro 2y ago
    I didn't know that nestle and shell had AI departments. Look, I'm not +1 the EU here, but having some level of legal protection against marauding corporations is good. Sure EU based companies are evil, but they can't be as abusive to normal people because they are constrained by a semi-functional legal system. The US used to have that as well, along with a functioning legislature.
    - tsunamifury 2y ago
      They do not. I can't even begin to explain to you how delusional this is. To be clear, I gave testimony to the NTHSA that the first Porsche Taycan was unfit for road driving due to extreme errors in the software architecture and in part got the CEO of Porsche fired. (Specifically error handling so laughably bad it caused the entire car to lock up at speed.) The EU only FOLLOWED grudgingly after the US demanded the recall. I am extremely aware of EXACTLY how risk-taking European companies are.
  - nicce 2y ago
    I am not joking. ”Move fast and break things” was even the motto of Zuckerberg back in day in Facebook. There are studies about it. Even Y Combinator has some history of admitting that they seek people like that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2579990 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2579990 I particularly meant tech companies. Of course, you can find unethical businesses everywhere.
_DeadFred_ 2y ago
"I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies: 1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works. 2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it. 3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things." -Douglas Adams in The Salmon of Doubt

slackfan 2y ago

[flagged]

segasaturn 2y ago
This isn't helpful or realistic. It's becoming more and more difficult to keep all your personal data private and function in society, which is all by design for companies like Meta.
- slackfan 2y ago
  Posting on social networks can easily be seen as counterproductive to societal function these days.
mt_ 2y ago
Exactly, and the OP is not bothered about the content that is around him, somehow for him that must have been generated from thin air.
- npteljes 2y ago
  People are not born with knowledge, however trivial it seem after knowing it. Same thing with privilege: different perspectives are earned with experience, not something that we start with.
redeux 2y ago
You’ve posted enough info here on HN for anyone to dox you (I won’t). Just thought it was relevant to your comment.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

aithrowawaycomm 2y ago

The content of the ad seems a bit on-the-nose given how much of Instagram is devoted to onanistic preening...

KaiserPro 2y ago
but its not an ad though? its meta-ai doing meta-ai things. Like if it was "buy this shit", or "your next location sponsored by bud lite" then yeah, but its not an advert.
- miltonlost 2y ago
  "buy this shit" and "use this shit we made" is still an advert. Just because the person receiving the advert doesn't pay for the product themselves via cash and instead is paying via their personal data doesn't mean the post is not advertisement. The post is literally advertising MetaAI's product??? Do you know what an advert's definition is?
  - KaiserPro 2y ago
    When I saw the original link on bluesky, I didn't have time to look into it, I had assumed it was something like a post where a sponsor had paid meta to show a user a picture of said user in one of their adverts. Ie meta was being paid to whore out your likeness. > Do you know what an advert's definition is? according to this: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/advertisement https://www.dictionary.com/browse/advertisement its not. Look, I don't like meta any more than you do. But this is a service that is provided by them. Its not an advert, meta aren't making money from generating that user's likeness, or any other. I don't like GenAI, its going to ruin an industry I love, one I wanted to return to. When the bubble pops, its probably going to make me loose my job too. But this isn't an advert.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
- pndy 2y ago

carlosdp 2y ago

Maybe I'm in the minority here, but this is kinda cool! As long as the user data doesn't leave the Meta ecosystem (no reason to think it does right now, the ad in question here is from Meta itself), it's not a privacy concern since only you are being shown those unique ads with you in them. Even if other advertisers start using the system, as long as the generated resulting images are never shared with the advertisers and are unique to each user, its just a futuristic way to help you "imagine" what having XYZ product would be like, which is what most ads strive to do. People have knee-jerk reactions to anything to do with ads because of the privacy concerns of yesterday, understandably. But if you actually step back and think about this, there's no reduction in privacy that I can see. If people are creeped out by it, I think they should maybe let people disable them with a setting. But in general, making ads more effective without giving advertisers more data about us is a great thing for the continuation of free amazing internet services!

afavour 2y ago
Man, I absolutely cannot disagree more. If a service wants to use my face in an ad they need to ask me for permission first. The gradual erosion of user autonomy we’ve seen online over the past few decades never ceases to amaze me. > People have knee-jerk reactions to anything to do with ads because of the privacy concerns of yesterday, understandably. Can you elaborate on this? What were the privacy concerns of yesterday that we don’t need to worry about today?
- mysterydip 2y ago
  > If a service wants to use my face in an ad they need to ask me for permission first. But you granted us full unrestricted access when you agreed to page 58 section J of our latest terms of service. - meta lawyer somewhere
- carlosdp 2y ago
  It's an ad only you can see, I don't see the harm. > What were the privacy concerns of yesterday that we don’t need to worry about today? The web/internet is a hell of a lot more private today than 10 years ago. Third party cookies are basically gone, mobile tracking is going out the door with Apple leading that charge, there are tons of relatively popular browsers and extensions that reduce tracking even more, there's enough privacy legislation that big companies have had to re-architect to preserve privacy as much as possible by default. Hell, if we're just talking about Meta, they literally nuked a thriving third-party developer API ecosystem to appease people's privacy concerns, out right.

hbn 2y ago

I'll play some defence for them here. You were playing with Meta's AI face tool, and now it's taken some results from that and swapped them in where ads would usually go. I'm assuming they don't do this if you just uploaded photos to Facebook/Instagram, you seemingly gave them a picture with the direct intent of them using it to make AI images. It doesn't seem that much different from when I'm typing a chat reply in Snapchat and it starts automatically suggesting stickers with mine and my friends' faces doing silly things with cartoon bodies. Or using my avatar to try and upsell me to their premium subscription. Don't give them a picture of your face to mess around with if you don't like them messing around using a picture of your face.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
matsemann 2y ago
I instantly revoked Facebook's access to my photos a few years back, when it had taken photos from my camera roll and put it into my feed with a "do you want to share this"? I was browsing on the subway, and did not expect a medical picture of me showing up for everyone there to see. And I realized facebook as well could do what they wanted with my pictures.
Hizonner 2y ago
> Don't give them a picture of your face to mess around with if you don't like them messing around using a picture of your face. OK. In fact, I'll do better than that. I won't interact with any of their products or services in any way, including blocking all their domains several times over in various browser extensions. Snapchat, too. Actually I used my time machine to implement it already. How much surreal harassment will you people put up with?
- lazide 2y ago
  Apparently, a whole lot more. I recently had someone stunned (actually, truly stunned) that I didn’t have Instagram. I spent 5 minutes looking at it years ago, and deleted it - and have never regretted that decision. Notably, I’m also unsurprisingly no fun at parties.

ssivark 2y ago

For starters, how is it not a violation (eg. "personality rights") to use a person's likeness without permission? As a further example, do we really want insurance companies serving ads using near and dear ones as potential disaster victims? This is really getting out of hand.

pta2002 2y ago

Jesus Christ the victim blaming in this thread is insane. This is why deepfake laws are needed. Sure OP used Meta AI, and consented, but if I did that I'd probably be consenting to using the picture _for that one session_, where I'm in control. Definitely not for this, they shouldn't be able to put this in their ToS.

bingaweek 2y ago
Companies need to be reminded that their operation is subject to our own ToS, the law, and it supercedes theirs. We can change it at any time and the sycophants defending any legal behavior aren't winning any favors. The behavior you see on HN playing defense for violations of privacy is disgusting, but I'm glad it's out in the open for everyone to see how far they'll go.
mdanger007 2y ago
Absolutely. The public doesn’t care what word games you play or what rights you allocate yourself in a terms of service if you pull off something shady you deserve all the bad publicity you get
SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
I don't think it's victim blaming to say that the linked Reddit post is missing critical details (and indeed any details) about what precisely is going on. I agree that it's quite bad if Meta did this without the user specifically asking them to do so.
zombiwoof 2y ago
Welcome to Humans 3.0
1shooner 2y ago
> but if I did that I'd probably be consenting to using the picture _for that one session_, where I'm in control. You mean you you'd be wanting to consent to one session, while actually affirmatively consenting to something else. On one hand I agree there would be nothing wrong with limiting the scope of what is legally allowed in a ToS. On the other, I also think it's good that single parties can't just spontaneously wish away conditions of business agreements they don't like (although I imagine with a modicum of effort, you could modify that consent with Meta at any point). There's a comment in the reddit thread about how consent to Meta is invalid because Meta is essential to participating in modern society - basically saying that being a Meta user is a civil right. Bonkers.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

paxys 2y ago

Standard internet outrage bait. There are no ads in the photos. The person uploaded their photo to Meta AI's "imagine me" feature which generates photos of you in exotic situations, and now the company is...putting them in exotic situations. That's literally what it is for.

dan_wood 2y ago
Yeah not seeing it either, both images say, only you can see this.. Feels more like it generated more than the user asked for and now it’s just showing those images in their feed.
- drivingmenuts 2y ago
  What nobody mentions about "only you can see this" is that "you" refers to ordinary users of the service and there is no mention if employees are included in that grouping. It has happened before that systems secure from the public were misused by persons with privileges within the organization. The obvious response is "well, yeah. So? They need it." but that's not how ordinary people, who don't deal with this daily, think. When they see "only you can see this" I think they take it literally. The computer is always watching and sometimes so are the people running the computers.
bandinobaddies 2y ago
It is still weird. Imagine you try out Photoshop online with your private photos. A few minutes later, you start seeing ads with those same photos edited in different ways. Even if those ads are visible only to you, it will still feel pretty creepy.
graypegg 2y ago
It's technically opt-in. You have to use their image generator, which requires agreeing to this "images appear in your feed randomly" feature implicitly. [0] You think you're just generating 1 photo, but you're actually signing up to a service that generates photos and adds them to your instagram feed. Even their help docs don't mention that nuance though. [1] It's not technically an ad, even though it mostly functions like one since the purpose of these images isn't anything more than bait to get the user to use meta ai more... I guess. [0] https://www.businessinsider.com/meta-ai-face-images-instagram-facebook-feeds-imagine-me-feature-2024-10 https://www.businessinsider.com/meta-ai-face-images-instagra... [1] https://www.meta.com/help/artificial-intelligence/imagine/?srsltid=AfmBOooirFpcpV53vVXtqVFmjdqzlFGDvjBwDHsNjH7zpQ9YZz5eYmUL https://www.meta.com/help/artificial-intelligence/imagine/?s...

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

Bengalilol 2y ago

The idea is kind of interesting, but who from Meta thought this would be cool to do such thing ?

pesus 2y ago
I wonder that in regards to just about everything they do.
MarkSweep 2y ago
Some growth team probably has goal to move a metric. This promotion is one of their experiments. If they move the metric, they can cite that in their performance review. If the promotion causes bad PR (see this thread) and none of the pre-launch reviews flagged it, they can then share what they learned with others in the company. They will say something like “lead a cross functional team to develop best practices for use of AI-generated pictures of a user in promotions” in their pronounce review. Either way, we get experimented on like lab rates and they get their bonus.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
radley 2y ago
In an old-school yay internet sense, it's fun like amusement park rides taking your photo. But in a modern sense, it's just creepy.
bitbuilder 2y ago
Agree with your sentiment, but I'd take it one step further: why doesn't anyone calling the shots at Meta realize just how uncool it is to do such a thing? Which is the same reaction I had to their recent AI influencers. It speaks to their seeming inability to read the zeitgeist on the general public's attitude towards generative AI at the moment. I'm generally "pro AI", in that I think generative AI is incredibly interesting tech that can potentially be used to create some very cool (and maybe even helpful) things. But "AI" has become a dirty word among the people I know who aren't living in our tech bubble - uncool at best, and evil at worst. And every time I see something like this, I understand perfectly why they feel that way. Every new hamfisted or creepy attempt at inserting AI into everything by companies like Meta just digs the hole even deeper for people's perception of generative AI.

npteljes 2y ago

[flagged]

miltonlost 2y ago
> These are not ads, rather something that is generated natively by the platform, not leading anywhere else but the platform that the user is already on. Is this post Advertising a product? Yes, it is advertising a MetaAI product. Just because it's not an external ad, doesn't mean it's not an ad. Hulu shows me adds for other Hulu shows. This is an ad despite me not leaving that streaming site. What is an advertisement to you?
- lbhdc 2y ago
  You are right, that is still and ad. Platform ads are really common for anyone running their own ad exchange. Sometimes its just to use up supply, other times its to meet in house goals.
- npteljes 2y ago
  This is technically true, these are advertisements. But not what first come to mind when reading the title "Instagram is using my face on ads targeted at me", which would be third-party ads, so this is my point. The title is sensational, a play on this misunderstanding, rather than being substantial.
  - sweeter 2y ago
    No one said third-party ads, the description is perfectly accurate to what is happening. The knee jerk reaction to call it sensationalist is odd to me.
  - bitmasher9 2y ago
    My ick levels are about the same whether it’s used by third parties or just Meta. It’s a mega corporation using my likeness to manipulate my behavior for their own ends.
    - 2y ago

oglop 2y ago

What better way to increase the hyperreality needed to sell products then to have you in the ad! But also this is HN, so someone needs tk lecture you on “what you mean” and also remind you it’s their product you used and signed up for and signed your rights away too so it’s YOUR fault, or some such pompous condescending trash. I say, lucky you! I say, embrace the future! I say, plaster my face on adult diaper ads and sell them to me. I say, slap my face on that TRT ad from my podcast that I listen to in my lonely apartment to feel a connection to the world while I write code that “matters”. It’s a beautiful world.

ajkjk 2y ago

I'd like to see the "imagine what you'd look like if you exercised a lot more" or "had better posture" or "spent all summer in the sun" filters.

floatrock 2y ago

Opening up a whole new dimension of adtech personalization/engagement here... more evil brainstorming: - electronic billboards on the bus corner start doing this while walking down the street - your favorite peacock sitcom starts injecting your friends or recent vacation locations or friends' recent vacation locations on the main character's digital picture frame. Your buddy recently went to Sandals Resort in Jamaica? Now that's going to be emphasized in the unused screen real estate in the background of the bar scene to play on your fomo. - hell, sporting games already have digital billboards on the field barriers that are customized for different markets / broadcasters... why not customize them further for the individual stream

trescenzi 2y ago
There’s a scene in Minority Report of a mall and it’s basically this. The billboards scan you and then target you directly as you go by. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7bXJ_obaiYQ https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7bXJ_obaiYQ
- radley 2y ago
  I've always wondered about that scene: does everyone around him see him in the ads as well? If so, that would mean that they're appropriating his image to sell to others. Perhaps they're laser / audio projections, so each person only sees their own ad.
  - goldenCeasar 2y ago
    Or worse: he needed to consent to a TC that allows they do use his image if he wanted to enter the shopping.
    - _DeadFred_ 2y ago
      Dude don't go posting ideas like this on HN. Come on man.
  - pndy 2y ago

grakker 2y ago

Any complaint that starts with "used meta..." just loses me. It's like, I stuck this needle into my left testicle and now that testicle hurts.

anon373839 2y ago

There is an interesting phenomenon going on here. On one hand, this is pretty mundane: a software tool you’re currently using shows you examples of ways to use the software. On the other hand, this does technically constitute an “ad”. What’s interesting to me is that some people seem to have a strong emotional reaction to the fact that it’s possible to describe this as “Instagram using my face in an ad,” even if the underlying event lacks the characteristics that would make that statement outrageous.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
tsimionescu 2y ago
It's not mundane. The screenshots show Instagram displaying an ad for Meta AI. The user is not currently using MetaAI, they are using Instagram, so it's not at all "showing examples of ways to use the software you are currently using". It's more similar to Windows trying to sell you OneDrive through the Security Center, which is widely loathed, and recognized as an ad.
- anon373839 2y ago
  > It's not mundane. The screenshots show Instagram displaying an ad for Meta AI. Well, there it is again: what seems to make it objectionable is that it fits a certain definition, rather than it exhibiting some intrinsically objectionable features. (Note I’m not criticizing this; I just find it interesting.) Since I don’t personally see this as an ad, I might describe it as “The screenshots show an example of output that the user can generate with Meta AI. The example shown isn’t emotionally enagaging, and it resembles placeholder content.” What would make this stand out for me is if Meta owned a tooth whitening business, and then used this placement to show a version of myself with a whiter smile. Or any of the other dystopian examples in this thread. But the one that actually occurred just doesn’t register for me as a breach of trust.
  - tsimionescu 2y ago
    "It's an ad" is shorthand for "this is trying to manipulate me to do/buy something". So the problem is not that it fits the definition of "ad", the problem, spelled out completely, is that they are using my likeness in something that is trying to manipulate me to do or buy something (do, in this case, since as far as others are saying, this is free of charge). Also, while the example shown does resemble placeholder content, it pretty clearly seems designed to evoke an emotional response, it seems designed to appear cool and futuristic. And regardless, people have a very high sensitivity to how their image is used. If I haven't given Instagram specific permission to use my image for something, it really really can't use my image for that thing. This goes beyond issues like copyright, it's a very basic human right to control how your own likeness is used.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

radley 2y ago

I think the common wisdom is that if you use a Meta product, they will try every possible form of social engineering to drive engagement. While this example was unexpected, it was predicted (Minority Report et al.) and is very much in line with their MO.

frereubu 2y ago
I'd say this is common wisdom on sites like HN, very much not outside the tech bubble. I can immediately bring to mind a good number of non-tech family members who would be completely freaked out by this.
- radley 2y ago
  Or perhaps, they could find it entertaining. Particularly if they're comfortable consuming Meta services.

zjp 2y ago

That's the end of my account, then.

maartenscholl 2y ago

Meta AI asks permission to do this, but note that in some U.S. states personal publicity rights end upon death. Isn't it hilariously Wallacian that this technology can be used to make targeted ads featuring the viewers deceased loved ones?

nullc 2y ago

Facebook is doing a public service here by being overt. Anyone else would just quietly take your face and those of your contacts and use it to generate an endless stream of faces which are unambiguously not you, yet compellingly familiar. ...maximizing their brainwashing effectiveness while minimizing the ick factor and triggering privacy minding behaviors. A lot of harm is done in the world by parties adaptively keeping their invasive conduct at just below the level which will trigger retaliation, legislation, etc. Like databrokers will sell exceptionally private data to anyone with a few bucks, but it's only a 'data breach' when someone takes that data without paying. The existence of databreaches even provides nice plausible deniability for harms that arise from the business of privacy-invasion-for-profit.

trhway 2y ago

wait until they generate your, possibly long dead, grandmother (just using information of your and your parents faces and voices) convincing you to try that brand of pies.

swayvil 2y ago
There is the theory that all men are deeply, possibly unconsciously, sexually attracted to their mother. Which leads to the obvious AI generated porn.
- lazide 2y ago
  That is an entirely different definition of pie than I’m comfortable considering.

lawgimenez 2y ago

I recently opted out of Meta’s AI, I’m not sure if this helps. > Object to Your Information Being Used for AI at Meta

fairytalemtg 2y ago

just a reminder that you are the product. Sorry to read this, it is frustrating to see our own face in feeds targeted at us. No clue who thought that would be a win.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

htrp 2y ago

It's only a matter of time before this gets put into the programmatic ad formats where you can do individual level targeting. The advertiser won't ever have to see your image as meta will offer it as a service. More importantly, just like things like pmax (google's current optimization product), your account manager will heavily incentive you towards running these AI campaigns.

bobheadmaker 2y ago
That sounds horrible, I hope we prevent this before seeing the negative impacts!
- lazide 2y ago
  Honestly, what do you think the odds are of that happening?

benreesman 2y ago

My mom uses Instagram constantly but when she got hit with this she freaked out and said “fuck Facebook” out loud in public and put her phone away.

theptip 2y ago

That's... not an ad? User used Meta AI to touch up a selfie, now Meta AI is generating more selfies for you. I can understand the annoyance from cross-linking apps in the same way it's annoying to get the Threads popup in your feed, but really, this is utter clickbait.

llamaimperative 2y ago
I mean it really is an ad, just an ad for one of Meta’s own products. I wouldn’t be surprised if it is quite literally an ad where one team is winning the ad auction to place these into the feed.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
awinter-py 2y ago
kind of an interesting question -- are product nudges ads? like when there's a button to use a paid feature which pops up on top of a different button, is it an ad? it's not third party.
- rainonmoon 2y ago
  When a TV network airs promos for its own shows, is it an ad?
  - Brian_K_White 2y ago
    Yes.
  - p1necone 2y ago
    I remember being utterly baffled by this as a kid at other peoples houses. "Let me get this straight, you pay a bunch of money for 'special' TV channels that say they have no ads, and you still have to watch ads? What kind of insane horseshit is this?". Put me off non free to air TV for my entire adult life until streaming services became a thing, and you better believe I'm immediately unsubscribing from those the second they pause a video I'm watching to show me promos or ads.

duskwuff 2y ago

> Imagine yourself reflecting on life in an endless maze of mirrors where you're the main focus. This feels almost a bit too on-the-nose. But no, apparently it's real?

trilbyglens 2y ago

I really hate ai generated images of real people. If we thought Photoshop was bad for body image issues this is like putting that effect on heroin. I hope there's a massive backlash against this AI shit tbh. Leave it to meta to find a psychologically toxic application for any given technology.

jk808 2y ago

So, I had a terrific loss of the love of my life. I don't know how, but am seeing ads that literally resemble her likeness and it's happened more then once. Not look alike but her. Once I found out photobucket was training its AI on users photos, I removed them all and uploaded them to Google photos and now on youtube I'll see an add for a college and there she is dressed up graduation dress and colors of the college (a local) college.its like these evil companies are rubbing it in my face I'm thinking of getting a flip phone my heart is broken and continues to be everytime she pops up in an ad even though I know it's impossible to be her, the data analytics companies know of us through whatever our unique IDs are, picture scans or whatever the case and now they are breaking my heart daily and it's been over a year and I'm still mourning barely making it thru my days only to have her keep popping up how evil