FriendOfDeSoto

Starbucks said it was “deeply sorry for an unacceptable marketing incident”

An unacceptable marketing incident? Like it was thrust upon them. Incidentally, by themselves. The language is baffling although I'm willing to accept it might have sounded less incidental in the original Korean.

Obvs this is very dumb, a bunch of executives are asleep at the wheel, and they probably deserve the 26% drop in revenue for it. The apology needs to be performative and this company-wide, revenue sacrificing history lesson is coincidentally good marketing, I imagine.

That being said, this isn't really a FuckAI story. Sure, the model suggested a couple of things that only sound great if you're ignorant of Korean history. But this isn't a model breaking the sandbox and releasing all company secrets by accident. Or suggesting to help teenagers with ending their lives. This is first and foremost careless managerial conduct. They should have stopped the campaign and even might have if they had bothered to read the email attachments. This could've come from a historically ignorant ad agency as well. This is human error, not model madness.

Looking forward to the US Starbucks smashing caffeine explosion campaign that will surely bring the house down in September.

What they think is wrong and is borne out of laziness and the misguided mass hysteria that this is the future. Other futures are available. Your phrasing of the question led me to believe you have absorbed the bs marketing of the peddlers of so-called AI. There is nothing efficient about it at present.

Don't use it whenever you don't get punished for it in school, i.e. people should know how to use it so it should be taught in schools. Along with how to spot mistakes and general media savvyness. Highlight the mistakes and shortcomings whenever possible. Stay away from people who need to ask a chat bot first before they do anything. Be the fucking salmon that swims upstream past lurching bears to get laid (and let's say not die during or afterwards, to keep it light).

What does any of this have to do with "pure efficiency?" The alleged efficiency of these models is only on the user side of the equation. It can do things for you in milliseconds that would take you hours to do yourself. Except it doesn't do this reliably and you need to double check its work a lot, which often negates any efficiency gains.

On the backend it's tying up resources in chip making with negative knock-on effects for any other products needing chips, wasting drinking water because that's cheaper then building circular cooling systems, cutting into any progress in switching to renewable energy sources and thus putting this planet in further peril, and it's making people dumber overall because they feel they can outsource thinking to some juiced to spell checking algorithm.

Efficiency where?

No.

The ruling isn't final.

On that we are agreed. The headline speaks of a landmark ruling, which I think is too much acclaim for a decision a higher court could just dismiss.

I think my sniping at Bavaria speaks for itself.

They don't need sway as much as money and lawyers, which I imagine they have. And this verdict is probably on the worst outcome end of the scale for them. I cannot imagine they will accept a ruling that calls them daft like this one does. They will try to water down liability for their model's fantasy summaries. Whether they succeed is a different question. But they will try, so they will appeal, so this verdict isn't worth the paper it's printed on. Yet.

All I said is that this verdict isn't effective yet. These headlines and sadly this article buries this fact in a sentence in the last paragraph. Blink and you miss it stuff. Lemmies tend to overlook this and declare victory over Google when this was merely the first battle of the war.

This isn't final. Google has time to appeal. Let's hold off on the label "landmark" until it reaches legal effectiveness. Which it probably won't, however good a verdict by a German regional court, much less one based in Bavaria, this is in my opinion.

Google lawyers arguing in court that Google's so-called AI results are shit anyways and people should know it is chef's kiss.

"We will change the law" means they haven't changed it yet. And this PM is so god damn popular in his own party, they are just trying to get his possible replacement in in an otherwise unnecessary byelection. This sounds decisive but isn't a fait accompli by any stretch of the imagination. The tech big guns will sound amenable to such a policy but will do fuck all.

So I didn't watch this on principle because I think all these YT videos here aren't there to be informative but to increase the view numbers for the algo over there. I also already know Meta is a terrible company run by careless people so the shock value when Zuckerberg says something daft is frankly not that high.

I have however a thing to say about this video's thumbnail. We're in the FuckAI community looking at a thumbnail, whose background picture looks suspiciously like it was generated by a fucking model. We mustn't allow this to seep in through the back door just because Zuckerberg gets put on blast.

Yeah but it isn't here.

If you want to get picky, Xwitter didn't enshitify as laid out as a concept by Cory Doctorow. The best example is probably Amazon which went from being insanely user friendly to lock in users, to supplier-friendly and increasingly less so for users, until it had squeezed and shafted both groups. That's enshitification and it doesn't apply to Xwitter. They had problems to make money before a certain somebody bought it. They've been bleeding users since the eventually Nazi saluting manbaby bought it, who then wanted to sue advertisers who refused to buy ads on his service. There was no user lock-in and then a supplier lock-in. There was just shit. All their current problems are man made. By one specific man.