The rapid spread of artificial intelligence has people wondering: who’s most likely to embrace AI in their daily lives? Many assume it’s the tech-savvy – those who understand how AI works – who are most eager to adopt it.
Surprisingly, our new research (published in the Journal of Marketing) finds the opposite. People with less knowledge about AI are actually more open to using the technology. We call this difference in adoption propensity the “lower literacy-higher receptivity” link.
i think we give silicon valley too much linguistic power. there should really be more pushback on them rebranding LLMs as AI. it’s just a bunch of marketing nonsense that we’re letting them get away with.
(i know that LLMs are studied in the field of computer science that’s known as artificial intelligence, but i really don’t think that subtlety is properly communicated to the general public.)
That’s because the target of the language is the know-nothing speculative investor class. The distinction doesn’t matter to us because we’re not being sold a service, we’re being packaged as a product.
The increasingly-impossible-to-opt-out-of nature of LLMs/AIs illustrates as much. We’re getting force-fed a “free” service that’s fundamentally worse than what came before it, because its an extractive service.
Those would be AI though wouldn’t they?
The pushback I would like to see is the rush of companies to rebrand ordinary computer programs as “AI”.
I actually think in this case it’s the opposite-- your expectations of the term “AI” aren’t accurate to the actual research and industry usage. Now, if we want to talk about what people have been trying to pass off as “AGI”…
i think that’s fair point. language does work both ways, and i am certainly not in the majority with this opinion. but what bothers me is that it feels like they’re changing the definition of the word and piggybacking off of its old meaning. i know this kind of thing isn’t all that uncommon, but it still rubs me the wrong way.