878
AI Rule
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2024
878 points (98.6% liked)
196
16501 readers
2937 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
So here in the states (for now) there's an actual rule that ads on service sights (such as news sites) have to be stated and made evident they are in fact ads. WSJ isn't allowed to post an article that is really a commercial.
So one of the effects this may lead to is acceleration in the development of visual adblockers, which identify ads by their positioning on the site rather than from their servers, what's been a long running project since Google has been trying to figure out how to stealth ads so they don't come directly from the ad servers (even though this gums up their analysis computations).
Now for the time being, laws against commercial shenanigans are not strongly enforced, so they may get away with using AI to fold ads into news articles, although that may have side effects like end-users associating Folgers Crystals (Instant Coffee) with the latest rampage shooting, much the way that Twitter/X sponsors are getting their products associated with white supremacist rhetoric.
Commercials blended seamlessly into content risk the content not being brand-safe, which drives moderation of social media far more than public preferences.
It seems like neither marketers nor webservice providers know what they're doing, and so mixing AI into their efforts for more clicks and more buy-ins is going to lead to some exciting absurd consequences.
...will guarantee I never visit that site again. Resorting to "HA! Made you look at an ad" tactics will not only make me hate the site that does it, but the product/company in the ad as well.
One can hope. We have generations now suckered by Transformers as a toy-line and full-slot commercial programs to sell them, now several (not terrible at all) series and a run of movies.
They're better at the process now, but so is the public at being less influenced by them.
I'm sorry, what? Maybe it's because I just woke up that I'm not comprehending what you're saying. I know the transformer movies are product placement showcases, it's pathetic, but it sounds like you're calling the very existence of transformers a successful ad campaign.
They were a toy set first (inspired by variable mechs in Japanese Anime, e.g. the Valkyrie variable fighters Macross) and the original pitch of the series was as a means to sell initial line of toys.
So yeah, it would be much like if they made a TV series about Hot Wheels cars. That isn't to say it was of poor quality, just that the primary motivation was to sell toys.
So yes. the very existence of transformers emerged from a successful ad campaign. Deregulation of television during the Reagan era was what allowed this to happen during the early eighties.
On the one hand, gross, but on the other, launching a full fledged product (a hand animated cartoon series) to sell the arguably cheaper product is such a high effort move that I'm not even mad. The end result is two high quality products for the target audience - I mean Gen X on down have fond childhood memories of the cartoons and toys.
But GROSS.