4 ms·

Why is Big Tech hellbent on making AI opt-out?

23 points by rntn 2y ago

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
zeroonetwothree 2y ago
Have to justify all those billions spent on it somehow.
datadrivenangel 2y ago
Stock prices and promotions. If you're a product person at a Big Tech, making your AI feature opt-out means you can justify a promotion with "My new generative AI feature has seen record fast adoption with 200 MILLION Weekly Active Users" And if you're an executive, you can claim any customer value comes from the AI features, which the stock market likes right now.
twoodfin 2y ago
Because they believe (correctly, I think) that AI is going to be foundational to most of the computing experiences we have, moreso over time. I don't think it's particularly absurd to make an analogy to other foundational technologies. When relational databases were invented, and enabled a ton of new & better capabilities across a host of user-facing software, it would have been strange to let users "opt-out" into the more limited, simpler experiences that could still be supported on earlier data architectures. And what would it even mean, practically? Maintain two separate data management systems, one relational and one legacy? AI is almost certainly going to be like that, threaded throughout the designs of essentially everything above a certain level of computational complexity.
- sumuyuda 2y ago
  I’m pretty sure AI won’t be crammed into any Linux distros against the wishes of users.
  - twoodfin 2y ago
    How sure are you that the next generation of video compression codecs won't rely in part on AI/ML models? I'd even be surprised if a decade from now there are 0 models in the Linux kernel. If a SOTA model for I/O scheduling existed & was clearly superior for a broad range of scenarios, why wouldn't Linux adopt it as the default?
- rsynnott 2y ago
  “This thing doesn’t work now, but we believe it might work in the future, so you must use it now” is an absolutely _deranged_ policy.
fullshark 2y ago
They want data / feedback to improve the model
epistasis 2y ago
My annoyance with the AI additions is only slightly higher than the constant UI changes in, say, a Google UI. So f&@@&?@&!& annoying to login to do something and hav things moved around for zero benefit, but it really is the icing on the cake when they put a pop-up over the UI declaring the change with pride, which further distracts me from accomplishing the task I need to. So now whenever I type in GMail I have an annoying "Polish" button to distract me from the writing. Not the worst change, but certainly a net negative. And why would I ever want to translate to Polish anyway? You won't even find any Polish text in my email anywhere.
- tivert 2y ago
  > So f&@@&?@&!& annoying to login to do something and have things moved around for zero benefit, but it really is the icing on the cake when they put a pop-up over the UI declaring the change with pride, which further distracts me from accomplishing the task I need to. I'm sorry, I think you're confused. That annoyance you feel is the feeling of technology innovators innovating to make the world a better place. Change is good. I'm looking forward to the singularity, where Silicon Valley will finally improve the human experience to the point where it will be pure inescapable annoyance, felt constantly all the time. The haters needs to keep their negativity to themselves, get out of the way of the builders, and be positive about what they're building.
  - franktankbank 2y ago
    Seriously this is like intolerance of intolerance and I applaud you sir.
- karmakurtisaani 2y ago
  That's such a negative attitude. Rather, try to feel pride for the promotion some designer in Google is about to get. > And why would I ever want to translate to Polish anyway? This must be some new encryption scheme. Polish looks like hashed plaintext.
oidar 2y ago
Firstly, To justify easing the product into subscriptions if it isn't already. Secondly, for product teams to justify their work. Thirdly, to signal that new features are being developed. Finally, when generative AI works in a product is is pretty awesome (but sadly it doesn't work well all the time).
silverquiet 2y ago
There's an opt out?
strict9 2y ago
Because such decisions are for shareholders and not users. I guess we should be thankful we can disable it at all in some cases. Apple Intelligence was particularly a let down. It just got in the way, adding noise and distraction and not adding anything useful.
- epistasis 2y ago
  Yes, it was by far the least Apple thing I have ever seen on the platform. The onboarding was especially jarring and thoughtless. At one point it required that I speak out loud to my computer to continue, or to just stop the whole thing. I was in the middle of an office, and I have zero interest in ever talking to my computer even in private, hell no am I going to speak out loud. So Apple Intelligence remains half setup, and I won't bother to continue the experience anymore. The lack of thought to include a "not now" like they do elsewhere shows how it's a real half-asses effort and management is just trying to get something, anything, out the door ASAP, utility or effectiveness be damned. If Jobs came back there would be several immediate firings of VPs and probably a C level or two. It's just absolutely chaotic and user hostile.
5555624 2y ago
From a general consumer point of view? If it has AI,it's the latest and greatest. It's got to be better than something without AI. It's opt-put because most people won't opt-out, if only because they can't be bothered. Lacking strong privacy laws, the user agreements probably say that all their data can be used for any variety of uses. "We're going to use your data to help make our AI features better? Oh, sure, that's great!" (Most people won't think of the privacy implications.)
- epistasis 2y ago
  > From a general consumer point of view? If it has AI,it's the latest and greatest. It's got to be better than something without AI. What fraction of general consumers think this? 15%? 5%? I have met zero that think this way, and I muck with the stuff a lot. I think that executives feel this way but I don't think many of general consumers think having AI is the latest and greatest.
- rsynnott 2y ago
  > From a general consumer point of view? If it has AI,it's the latest and greatest. It's got to be better than something without AI. That is certainly what the vendors would _like_ consumers to think. It’s not what consumers think, though, particularly in the developed world: https://business.yougov.com/content/50504-ai-integration-into-products-has-a-no-major-impact-on-two-in-five-consumers-purchasing-decisions https://business.yougov.com/content/50504-ai-integration-int... (the headline buries the lede a bit; in most major developed markets it would actively put off more people than it would turn on.)
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
Ukv 2y ago
> Regulators worldwide are keen to ensure that marketing and similar services are opt-in [...] but for some reason, forcing AI on customers is acceptable. [...] there needs to be a moratorium on adding AI services without first asking customers for consent Consent should be required if you're collecting private data for marketing or for training an LLM/etc. But, I don't think adding some ML functionality to an application (say, OCR to a PDF reader, or translation to posts on a social network) inherently requires getting customers' consent any more than adding any other feature would. I can appreciate the annoyance over "formerly pristine applications cluttered with AI features" since it's the current trend - but see it as similar to the annoyance over flat design (which rarely even had an opt-out) as opposed to something that needs a legal prohibition.

23 points by rntn 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

zeroonetwothree 2y ago

Have to justify all those billions spent on it somehow.

datadrivenangel 2y ago

Stock prices and promotions. If you're a product person at a Big Tech, making your AI feature opt-out means you can justify a promotion with "My new generative AI feature has seen record fast adoption with 200 MILLION Weekly Active Users" And if you're an executive, you can claim any customer value comes from the AI features, which the stock market likes right now.

twoodfin 2y ago

Because they believe (correctly, I think) that AI is going to be foundational to most of the computing experiences we have, moreso over time. I don't think it's particularly absurd to make an analogy to other foundational technologies. When relational databases were invented, and enabled a ton of new & better capabilities across a host of user-facing software, it would have been strange to let users "opt-out" into the more limited, simpler experiences that could still be supported on earlier data architectures. And what would it even mean, practically? Maintain two separate data management systems, one relational and one legacy? AI is almost certainly going to be like that, threaded throughout the designs of essentially everything above a certain level of computational complexity.

sumuyuda 2y ago
I’m pretty sure AI won’t be crammed into any Linux distros against the wishes of users.
- twoodfin 2y ago
  How sure are you that the next generation of video compression codecs won't rely in part on AI/ML models? I'd even be surprised if a decade from now there are 0 models in the Linux kernel. If a SOTA model for I/O scheduling existed & was clearly superior for a broad range of scenarios, why wouldn't Linux adopt it as the default?
rsynnott 2y ago
“This thing doesn’t work now, but we believe it might work in the future, so you must use it now” is an absolutely _deranged_ policy.

fullshark 2y ago

They want data / feedback to improve the model

epistasis 2y ago

My annoyance with the AI additions is only slightly higher than the constant UI changes in, say, a Google UI. So f&@@&?@&!& annoying to login to do something and hav things moved around for zero benefit, but it really is the icing on the cake when they put a pop-up over the UI declaring the change with pride, which further distracts me from accomplishing the task I need to. So now whenever I type in GMail I have an annoying "Polish" button to distract me from the writing. Not the worst change, but certainly a net negative. And why would I ever want to translate to Polish anyway? You won't even find any Polish text in my email anywhere.

tivert 2y ago
> So f&@@&?@&!& annoying to login to do something and have things moved around for zero benefit, but it really is the icing on the cake when they put a pop-up over the UI declaring the change with pride, which further distracts me from accomplishing the task I need to. I'm sorry, I think you're confused. That annoyance you feel is the feeling of technology innovators innovating to make the world a better place. Change is good. I'm looking forward to the singularity, where Silicon Valley will finally improve the human experience to the point where it will be pure inescapable annoyance, felt constantly all the time. The haters needs to keep their negativity to themselves, get out of the way of the builders, and be positive about what they're building.
- franktankbank 2y ago
  Seriously this is like intolerance of intolerance and I applaud you sir.
karmakurtisaani 2y ago
That's such a negative attitude. Rather, try to feel pride for the promotion some designer in Google is about to get. > And why would I ever want to translate to Polish anyway? This must be some new encryption scheme. Polish looks like hashed plaintext.

oidar 2y ago

Firstly, To justify easing the product into subscriptions if it isn't already. Secondly, for product teams to justify their work. Thirdly, to signal that new features are being developed. Finally, when generative AI works in a product is is pretty awesome (but sadly it doesn't work well all the time).

silverquiet 2y ago

There's an opt out?

strict9 2y ago

Because such decisions are for shareholders and not users. I guess we should be thankful we can disable it at all in some cases. Apple Intelligence was particularly a let down. It just got in the way, adding noise and distraction and not adding anything useful.

epistasis 2y ago
Yes, it was by far the least Apple thing I have ever seen on the platform. The onboarding was especially jarring and thoughtless. At one point it required that I speak out loud to my computer to continue, or to just stop the whole thing. I was in the middle of an office, and I have zero interest in ever talking to my computer even in private, hell no am I going to speak out loud. So Apple Intelligence remains half setup, and I won't bother to continue the experience anymore. The lack of thought to include a "not now" like they do elsewhere shows how it's a real half-asses effort and management is just trying to get something, anything, out the door ASAP, utility or effectiveness be damned. If Jobs came back there would be several immediate firings of VPs and probably a C level or two. It's just absolutely chaotic and user hostile.

5555624 2y ago

From a general consumer point of view? If it has AI,it's the latest and greatest. It's got to be better than something without AI. It's opt-put because most people won't opt-out, if only because they can't be bothered. Lacking strong privacy laws, the user agreements probably say that all their data can be used for any variety of uses. "We're going to use your data to help make our AI features better? Oh, sure, that's great!" (Most people won't think of the privacy implications.)

epistasis 2y ago
> From a general consumer point of view? If it has AI,it's the latest and greatest. It's got to be better than something without AI. What fraction of general consumers think this? 15%? 5%? I have met zero that think this way, and I muck with the stuff a lot. I think that executives feel this way but I don't think many of general consumers think having AI is the latest and greatest.
rsynnott 2y ago
> From a general consumer point of view? If it has AI,it's the latest and greatest. It's got to be better than something without AI. That is certainly what the vendors would _like_ consumers to think. It’s not what consumers think, though, particularly in the developed world: https://business.yougov.com/content/50504-ai-integration-into-products-has-a-no-major-impact-on-two-in-five-consumers-purchasing-decisions https://business.yougov.com/content/50504-ai-integration-int... (the headline buries the lede a bit; in most major developed markets it would actively put off more people than it would turn on.)

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

Ukv 2y ago

> Regulators worldwide are keen to ensure that marketing and similar services are opt-in [...] but for some reason, forcing AI on customers is acceptable. [...] there needs to be a moratorium on adding AI services without first asking customers for consent Consent should be required if you're collecting private data for marketing or for training an LLM/etc. But, I don't think adding some ML functionality to an application (say, OCR to a PDF reader, or translation to posts on a social network) inherently requires getting customers' consent any more than adding any other feature would. I can appreciate the annoyance over "formerly pristine applications cluttered with AI features" since it's the current trend - but see it as similar to the annoyance over flat design (which rarely even had an opt-out) as opposed to something that needs a legal prohibition.