They have already been demanding it in droves

People threaten to cancel their usage every time Meta does something stupid, and still Facebook and WhatsApp are thriving. A lot has to happen before people who say "I will cancel my subscriptions if you do that!" really cancel their subscriptions. Shouting empty threats during a shitstorm feels good, actually uninstalling the app you use daily does not. And companies know that.

> But will this turn into a consumer movement?

No.

who found customers are now reacting negatively to the term "AI" in product descriptions

Then they'll call it something else.

Calling in and having to talk to a machine is awful. A bunch of pharmacies are doing this now. I ended up switching to a local non chain pharmacy with much less convenient hours, but a human actually picks up when you call.

> "The people will be willing to pay more for things just made by humans."

In the 1990s, after the fall of the Berlin Wall and demise of the Soviet Union, the age of globalization [aided by the "information superhighway"] swept over the industrialized world: manufacturing migrated more intensely overseas, outsourcing was all of the rage, and overall cost efficiencies became achievable within years instead of decades. This business opportunity (economies of scale) was the underbelly behind Amazon from a profits-by-volume measure.

China became the dominant manufacturing hub but there was plenty of blowback for the increasing Made-in-China labels across all kinds of consumer goods. In the US, Made-in-America became a rallying cry for politicians and a marketing campaign by manufacturers... all with the promise that higher-quality domestic production, which would command higher price tags relative to the global market choices, would win-out the consumers' overall purchasing habits.

And it did: opinion polls all over agreed that domestic production was of higher-quality, and opinion polls agreed that their higher price tags were fully justified. Fast-forward to today and manufacturing in China far outweighs domestic production regardless of cost because money talks and everyone, by and large, would rather save money than not.

The same will happen with AI-or-AI-free products development and marketing. Will people be willing to pay more? Sure. But will people actually pay more for non-AI-laden products? Hahaha, no. Reduced operating costs for the products while increasing the product pricing equals MORE PROFITS and that's the last thing people want to pay for... loading up executives' pockets over the increase in profit margins.

Any products marketed as, "and now without any AI," should be viewed skeptically as just another money-grab. It's the same decision model used by many crooks holding positions of power, also.

The AI "fakes" will get good enough that most people won't be able to tell. Then the bean counters take over and companies do whatever is cheapest. They won't give a rat's ass about authenticity or whether or not it offends the sensibilities of the market. If they can hide it and it cut costs, it'll happen whether people want it or not.

Best,

The economic model is the problem. You love capitalism because the elite have groomed you to love it through propaganda. And they now say it out loud:

> “Capitalism Is a Lot More Important Than Democracy,” Says Donald Trump’s Economic Adviser Stephen Moore made the remarks in a 2009 documentary, adding, "I'm not even a big believer in democracy."

[1]https://theintercept.com/2016/... [theintercept.com]

It really sucks for the first ranks of people who are put out of work by AI but instead of going against AI why not go against capitalism?

[1] https://theintercept.com/2016/08/09/capitalism-is-a-lot-more-important-than-democracy-says-donald-trumps-economic-adviser/

Just have Canada and USA vote, make and pass laws that make opt-out a default when it concern AI, and to not "force" users to install or use any AI components to use the base functionality of their device. If the users want to, then let be his/her/their choice, not the data-mining company's holding the user hostage to do whatever until they have their AI anal probe installed everywhere and activated.

Just like Microsoft had to re-think their "internet explorer" embedding in Windows, it is time to require and

It has a use but NOT on the scale it is being constructed. Computers do not cannot and will not think.

The question and answer are very similar.

Many people hate big box stores because they are impersonal and put small businesses out of business, leading to layoffs. AI is also impersonal and puts some people out of work.

So how has the resistance to big box stores worked out?

There's your answer to how resisting AI will work out.

Users are, after all, the product, even if they pay, they don't matter. The people who matters are the investors, and investors demand AI.

Users on the other hand will pay for anything roughly meeting their needs. Since we live in a world of oligopolies, you can virtually abuse them to the point of them being barely able to work with it.

I mean a good example is Miro. It's a virtual sticky platform. You use it to place virtual stickies onto a virtual canvas with multiple users at the same time. It's slow, but

We have had 40 to 50 years worth of non-stop Mark and consolidation. In most markets 80% of the market is owned by one or two companies. It looks like there are more companies out there because they kept the brands. What few individual companies exist are also owned by the same handful of shareholders. No you having a few stocks in your 401k does not make you a shareholder. Not in the sense that you have any say in policy.

This is why enshitification happens. Companies can do whatever they want because i

Press 1 for Human Press 2 for AI

I personally don't see the point of consuming art that was made by AI. With art, the objective is to determine what the artist was trying to portray and it's relation to yourself.

What does an AI try to portray? It's just a random calculation. It's empty. Sure it will maybe make music to play in the background or a picture to fill a spot in a wall.. We have that kind of 'factory art' for a long time and sadly a lot of people buy it. But art that resonates with people? Nothing more than an ink blot t

The quotes mentioned aren't "AI is providing a worse experience", they are "oh, no, we are losing our humanity". If your only reason to not use a technology is because you're worried that lamplighters will lose their jobs, then you will always be part of a small minority.

I set up dual boots on my machines, and have encrypted my Linux home folders to keep them out of reach of Microsoft, but it is a process. I am also phasing out dropbox for anything but sharing cat pictures...well, out cat and dog overlords still need to be served. I only use Gmail to handle youtube channel stuff, which is google, anyways. In the sic final analysis: Microsoft putting Recall spyware on all Windows 11 machines, but claiming not to activate it--is still like someone parking tanks on your front lawn.

I've been meaning to look into this, but may be a good discussion topic here - is there any sort of certification or agreement out there?

You know how there are badges on websites about non-profit transparency, etc, is there something like this for AI content?

I design websites for a living, and currently refuse to use AI tools. I also have my own websites with informational content, and zero AI usage, intentionally.

Anyone seen anything like this?

(And yes, if there is, it'll probably go to shit...haha..but fo

There is nothing wrong with AI as a computer science, but as deployed, it has brought nothing good to the world, only widespread intellectual property theft, job loss, loss of job creation, 3rd-party pornography, crappy computer game frame generation. No great miracle wonder has taken place--but people are losing their jobs and their health insurance. We do not need any more billionaires pulling the world's strings.

So far the only group I see benefiting from this "AI" push are shareholders because of the promises (false, exaggerated?) being thrown around by their respective corporations. Everyone else is being affected negatively. In my opinion this is the largest snake oil operation ever put forth and it seems that people are starting to catch on, thankfully.

Both MS and Google have forced AI on their customers along with a convenient price rise for Office 365 and Google apps. They know very well that only a percentage of their users will actually use these features, so it's an excuse to squeeze more money out of us. In both cases it is possible to opt out and get back to the old prices for now, but neither company makes it easy. But we opted out in both cases, which does send a message of "no, thanks" to the companies. Hopefully others do as well.

Here's how

Depends on framing and whether some people perceive AI products as sufficiently dangerous or otherwise unacceptable.

If they do, there is probably a market, much like organic foods can sell at premium compared to "conventional" foods.

Offtopic - that "conventional" in English is a crafty shift of meaning btw, since "conventional" should, really, mean - produced without additional human-made processing, that's what "organic" is. A better name would have been "artificially induced" or some such, but - marketing

If AI makes a product or service better, it will be accepted

If AI is seen solely as a cost cutting measure or if it makes the product or service worse, it will be rejected

Are the AI models making errors teaching language? If not who cares