The force-feeding of AI features on an unwilling public

原始链接: https://www.honest-broker.com/p/the-force-feeding-of-ai-on-an-unwilling

The author is frustrated with the forced integration of AI into Microsoft and Google products. They dislike the unrequested AI "companion" and resent being charged for features they don't want or use. They point out that the low adoption rate of AI suggests people don't value it, yet tech companies are bundling it to hide losses and create the illusion of success. This practice is compared to forcing customers to accept and pay for something unwanted. The author worries about the future, where AI might replace human interaction in essential services like healthcare and emergency response, all without consumer choice. They argue for opt-in laws, transparency, and liability for AI failures, fearing that these changes won't be made before the AI is too powerful. Finally, they reject the argument that the U.S. needs to embrace AI to compete with China, preferring to avoid the potential regrets and negative consequences of widespread AI integration.

This Hacker News thread discusses the increasing integration of AI features into existing products, even when users find them annoying or useless. Commenters attribute this trend to companies panicking under investor pressure, fearing they'll be left behind. Some believe investors are simply chasing trends without clear understanding, while others point to the potential for AI to replace lower-level jobs, regardless of its actual utility. Concerns are raised about data privacy, reliance on a few powerful AI providers, and the accuracy of AI-generated content. Some users report successfully using AI tools for coding and writing, while others criticize the poor implementation and lack of control over AI integrations. Several commenters suggest that the "force-feeding" of AI is driven by a desire to capture user data for training models and generate revenue through subscriptions, even if users don't actively want the AI features. Overall, the thread highlights a growing tension between the hype surrounding AI and the practical reality of its implementation in everyday products and services.

原文

A few months ago, I needed to send an email. But when I opened Microsoft Outlook, something had changed.

Microsoft asked me to use Copilot to write my email. Copilot is my AI companion. (That’s the cute word they use.)

Hey I don’t want a companion—especially not a fake AI buddy. I never asked for this.

And what about the people receiving my emails? They don’t want this either. They want to hear from me, not a bot.

How do I turn my companion off?

After some trial-and-error, I found a way to disable Copilot. Phew!

But a few days later, Microsoft surprised me again. It wouldn’t let me save an Excel file until I had agreed to new terms for my software account.

Guess what? AI is now bundled into all of my Microsoft software.

Even worse, Microsoft recently raised the price of its subscriptions by $3 per month to cover the additional AI benefits. I get to use my AI companion 60 times per month as part of the deal.

But I don’t want to use it. I want to kill it.

As you can see, I’ve never used this service. I still have all 60 credits unused. But I’m paying for it—because it’s now embedded into Microsoft Word, Excel, etc.

This is how AI gets introduced to the marketplace—by force-feeding the public. And they’re doing this for a very good reason.

Most people won’t pay for AI voluntarily—just 8% according to a recent survey. So they need to bundle it with some other essential product.

You never get to decide.

Before proceeding let me ask a simple question: Has there ever been a major innovation that helped society, but only 8% of the public would pay for it?

That’s never happened before in human history. Everybody wanted electricity in their homes. Everybody wanted a radio. Everybody wanted a phone. Everybody wanted a refrigerator. Everybody wanted a TV set. Everybody wanted the Internet.

They wanted it. They paid for it. They enjoyed it.

AI isn’t like that. People distrust it or even hate it—and more so with each passing month. So the purveyors must bundle it into current offerings, and force usage that way.

“That’s the blight of the AI revolution. It looks like spam. It smells like spam. It tastes like spam.”

There’s another reason why huge tech companies do this—but they don’t like to talk about it. If they bundle AI into other products and services, they can hide the losses on their income statement.

That wouldn’t be possible if they charged for AI as a standalone product. That would make its profitability (or, more likely, loss) very easy to measure.

Shareholders would complain. Stock prices would drop. Companies would be forced to address customer concerns.

But if AI is bundled into existing businesses, Silicon Valley CEOs can pretend that AI is a moneymaker, even if the public is lukewarm or hostile.

It’s like a restaurant selling granite rocks for dessert. Nobody will buy them or eat them—so the product fails miserably. But if a popular restaurant adds a dollar to the meal price, and gives every customer a rock with their bill—well, then they can say that:

Every customer gets rocks for dessert.
Every customer pays for it.
Their business is more profitable because of the tasty granite rocks.

This is how AI accounting works in Silicon Valley.

“The AI business model would collapse overnight if they needed consumer opt-in. Just pass that law, and see how quickly the bots disappear. ”

And that’s why Google does something similar to Microsoft. They add AI to search results—you don’t get to choose. It’s force-feeding all over again.

So these huge digital platforms can pretend that users have totally embraced the new tech. Shut up, buddy, and chew on your rock.

This is how AI gets implemented everywhere.

You don’t get to choose. You’re never asked. It just shows up. Now you have to deal with it.

I don’t want AI customer service—but I don’t get a choice.
I don’t want AI responses to my Google searches—but I don’t get a choice.
I don’t want AI integrated into my software—but I don’t get a choice.
I don’t want AI sending me emails—but I don’t get a choice.
I don’t want AI music on Spotify—but I don’t get a choice.
I don’t want AI books on Amazon—but I don’t get a choice.

If they gave people a choice, they would reject this tyranny masquerading as innovation.

The AI business model would collapse overnight if they needed consumer opt-in.

Just pass that law, and see how quickly the bots disappear.

Customer surveys prove that. The survey cited above presented customers with descriptions of different refrigerators. When AI was added as a feature, people showed a preference for all the other models.

The Wall Street Journal concludes that companies should “beware of promoting AI in products.”

And it’s more than just products and services. People don’t even want AI in texts or documents of any sort.

In an earlier day, customer feedback would discourage businesses from adding AI. But the dominant AI companies are huge quasi-monopolies. So they don’t ask, they don’t care—they just do it.

Every day it gets more brazen.

Frank Zappa offers a possible mission statement for Microsoft back in 1976, a few months after the company is founded.

Meta is now planning to unleash bots on you in even more aggressive ways than Google or Microsoft. They are training AI bots to send you messages, whether you want them or not. And I know (from painful personal experience) that you cannot disable Facebook Messenger without shutting down your entire Facebook account.

There’s a word for this. It’s called spam—and people hate it.

But that’s the blight of the AI revolution. It looks like spam. It smells like spam. It tastes like spam.

What happens if we decide to boycott AI? The sad truth is that we can’t. It’s already too powerful.

If I wanted to boycott AI, I would need to give up