| ▲ | thisismyanon2 4 hours ago |
| How is it "so exaggerated and silly" to want to disable a feature in a product you pay for? It blows my mind at how allergic AI bros are to consent. |
|
| ▲ | tantalor 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Because that's not how software features work? You don't ask, "Hey, I don't have a printer, please disable the Print feature in MS word." No, you just... don't click that button. |
| |
| ▲ | tarsierscripter 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The print button doesn't persist across all sections of the ribbon, the Copilot button does. They decided people weren't using Copilot enough so they carved out a permanent place for it on the window. If the print button started elbowing other UI elements off the screen to occupy more and more prominent places then you could absolutely bet users would complain. The last time Microsoft went all-in on an annoying UI element like this? Clippy. How'd that go? | |
| ▲ | none_to_remain 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | If someone is really upset about seeing the button, I guess they could ask an AI to make their browser filter it out | |
| ▲ | shimman 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | You don't think users, paid users at that, shouldn't have a say in product development? Good lord no wonder the public distrusts the tech community so much. | | |
| ▲ | Grombobulous 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Yeah, I think the more broad issue here is that NYT should know better that public sentiment on AI is incredibly negative. I do find this somewhat paradoxical to the fact that clearly a lot of people use it. It seems like one of those things where culturally it’s become virtuous to be against it and to say you don’t use it, but privately most people are using it. Still, I think NYT’s subscriber demographic is likely pretty educated and specifically paying for higher quality content. They don’t want haphazardly tossed together recipe blogs. AI sentiment is negative enough that all companies who build in AI features need to include a toggle that hides them completely. Otherwise you get user backlash like this. | | |
| ▲ | eichin 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | So negative that the first I heard about this was with the title "New York Times adds glue to its Cooking App. Users aren't thrilled" (presumably from someone who read the niemanlab article before I did) |
| |
| ▲ | mmonaghan 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I think there are prob more paid users who want the feature and are willing to pay than those who don't want it, which is why the team built it. They might even believe it brings in new users. It's polarizing but all ai features are lately. | | |
| ▲ | thisismyanon2 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | TFA says that over 70% of the comments were negative with the remainder being split between positive and neutral. I'm sure the Times thinks it will rope in new users, but I'm sure the Times is factually wrong. | | |
| ▲ | jibalt 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Comments aren't users. Commenters are statistically biased toward complaints. | | |
| ▲ | thisismyanon2 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | If they're not users what are they? Are you trying to claim that the NYT site is getting brigaded by anti-AI advocates? There are plenty of AI-negative reviews on Apple's app store. Is the App Store publishing bogus complaints too? I think Occam's Razor applies here. Much like Copilot or Dell's AI computers, nobody wants slop from the NYT. People pay for NYT Cooking specifically for the human curation. Getting slop with a big "we didn't test this recipe and aren't responsible for it" is a net negative in this context. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | jibalt 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | That's quite a strawman. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | switchbak 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| If it's not enabled by default, "disabled" is the natural state, no? Or is this more intrusive than I imagine? |
|
| ▲ | jug 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| How would the NYT Cooking website even look like if it was entirely modularized into pieces that could be turned on and off to customize it to perfection for every taste? This AI thing is not even active nor activated unless you use it. The complaints here sound more reactive to the word AI than anything else to me. |
| |
| ▲ | none_to_remain 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | It already is, it's called a div and I can make it disappear in three clicks in my Firefox. It would be nice if this power was more available to the normies, but it's the same tool that makes the ad disappear. |
|
|
| ▲ | mmonaghan 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It's a big ask to be able to toggle whole features lol. Just don't use it if you don't like it |
|
| ▲ | jibalt 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Disabling the feature means disabling it for everyone. If you don't want to use it, just don't use it. |
|
| ▲ | hackboyfly 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| “It blows my mind at how allergic AI bros are to consent.“ You make it sound like you have to use it. Would you demand your mobile device manufacturer to rollback the features you don’t like and don’t use? Did you consent to it? The allergy against AI is understandable. But that’s because companies tries to shoehorn it in everywhere. This however sounds like a perfectly fine use case, which is also optional to use. |
| |
| ▲ | thisismyanon2 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | You make it sound like NYT has to include slop in the app and that the only way to do ingredient substitution is with AI. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | JohnMakin 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| “You will do as you are told. The market demands it.” |
