2 yrs ago I saw some company raise a million dollars by saying they used AI, when what they did could easily be done with an algorithm. Many things can be algorithms, regex filters, logic or heuristics (spam detection is an example) but nowadays people want the llm to do it first, without even thinking.
> PR executives say UK companies are forcing them to present ordinary automation as artificial intelligence<p>What a time to be alive
To be fair, that’s not exactly a new thing, it’s just sensitive to the exact phase of the Great AI Freeze/Thaw Cycle. A lot of now-ordinary automation used to be "AI" until it become commonplace and no longer buzzword-worthy and thus no longer regarded as "AI", and/or an AI winter hit.<p>Last time that AI was big before DL it was the "big data" fad and everything had to be big data. Marketing has never not been about how to disguise "what we already do" as the newest buzzword that customers want to hear.<p>The same goes, of course, for all the non-AI fads like "the cloud" or "NoSQL".
Fun times. Although I find it hard to blame them tbh.<p>They’re incentived to do so because apparently investors don’t understand the difference.
Remember when crypto was hot and everything had crypto.<p>Remember the Internet was first hot and everything was iThis or Active That. iPhone still has i.<p>Remember… well not, me, I wasn’t alive… when radiation was cool and Radioactive was in.<p>Everyone always wants to be cool.
BPM is now agentic, don’t you know.
Yup. Also ML is called AI now too at least as far as hiring managers are concerned. Adjust your resume accordingly.
ML is, obviously, AI. But not all AI is ML.<p>The reason the term "machine learning" was even invented was because it was one of the AI winters and an euphemism was needed because "AI" was more of a swearword than a buzzword.
"now"? The appliance industry pretty much hit the "label everything AI" button...again...within months of ChatGPT taking off.<p>Last time around was when "fuzzy logic" came out, I think?
[dead]
Two past co's I know well rebranded themselves as "cloud" a decade ago with a narrow definition
My favourite is Allbirds that pivoted from eco friendly shoes to AI infrastructure. How do you even make that decision?
They should make an app that can identify any bird. Then they will be able to justify it: we always wanted to live up to our name, the shoes were a side quest.
It's not really a pivot though, is it? As I understand it, the company went bust and sold their branding to a different company that wants to do AI infra.
What I saw somewhere, don't know if it's true or a rumour, was that it was a wallstreet guy offering them $5M for if he could shift the strategy. So be bought a _lot_ of shares of the very cheap pre-pivot price, paid them $5M for the pivot, sold the shares at the now 600% stock increase. Netted a tidy profit after the $5M.<p>They didn't trade company fundamentals, they traded the market sentiment.
Didn’t even sell the branding since that got sold to the same company that buys up all sorts of brands. The ai “pivot” was a blatant last ditch effort to milk some of the stock. It’s nothing more than fraud.
Branding not used for its intended purpose is about as useful as calling your landscaping company four seasons.
To be clear, <i>everything</i> about Allbirds including the brand name and other IP was sold off. The shoe store will continue operating (unless or perhaps until the new owners choose to shut it down) under the name "Allbirds"; the public company doing AI infra with the stock ticker BIRD will be named "NewBird AI".
So a company's success today may depend on how clickbaity their business model is.
I'd love to read the mind of an investor that actually falls for this shit. Who actually thinks that Allbirds will see much higher returns because they "have an AI graphics division?"<p>I like AI, but seriously, who actually invests on this basis? Where is the critical thinking? I don't feel sympathy for any investor that gets rug pulled on this stuff.
Allbirds sold their shoe business and is basically a SPAC that spun up an AI company under the existing publicly traded company. For all intents and purposes it’s just a new AI company.
AI graphics division: Putting in 100s of engineering hours to build and internal AI tool to produce AI-slopified marketing in order to save ~2h a month of human work.
Or just investment quotas requiring AI in the portfolio. I suspect it's mostly this. Or getting included in more indices etc.<p>The more trendy boxes you tick, the broader the universe of people whose box you tick and who can thus invest.
Investors by nature lap up hype, and it seems to work for them
<a href="https://youtu.be/oVItKzP6IBY" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/oVItKzP6IBY</a>
> Who actually thinks that Allbirds will see much higher returns because they "have an AI graphics division?"<p>Perhaps the investment is more on the “greater fool” theory. “I think this is complete nonsense, but there’s probably someone not as savvy who will buy into this garbage idea upon which I can profit.”
A lot of it is prisoner's dilemma and its variants. As an investor, even if you think a particular AI shift is bullshit, you have to take into account the possibility that other investors won't - and at that point you might miss out on the gains.<p>This is one of the reasons stock market is so disconnected from reality.
its greater fool theory <a href="https://moneyterms.co.uk/greater-fool/" rel="nofollow">https://moneyterms.co.uk/greater-fool/</a>
But wouldn’t it be a failure if it’s bullshit and therefore no gains?
Not if you sell before the other fools.
A16Z's post on the Slack IPO (<a href="https://a16z.com/announcement/slack/" rel="nofollow">https://a16z.com/announcement/slack/</a>) is a good pointer to the kind of thinking here. A pivot from an unprofitable game to laying off 80% of the company to a weird communication app could be fairly described as "bullshit", but when your business model is finding the rare exceptions where the stars align and a company ends up being worth billions, it's not a kind of bullshit you can afford to be entirely unreceptive to.
>I like AI, but seriously, who actually invests on this basis? Where is the critical thinking? I don't feel sympathy for any investor that gets rug pulled on this stuff.<p>They don't and the people who are falling for this rhetoric are naive. Most investors _should_ invest more in AI companies. And most companies _should_ invest in AI. It is the rational move and it is exactly what we are seeing here. I don't know what the hysteria is about.
I just hope there's .ai domains for all of them.<p>A while back we ran out of .com domains and that burst the bubble. Or something like this.
There's this new misplaced belief that most how of stock market works is by fooling the stock market with short term plays like this rebranding and then cashing out. Its attractive and speaks to the cynic in us.<p>The article gives three examples<p>- Allbirds, a shoe company<p>- A genetics company marketing that it is using AI<p>- a property tech company using AI to create 3rd landscapes<p>The Allbirds one is just financial re-engineering. The others are reasonable?
What the source article says is that it's a "property company" generating a "floor plan". The PR account director quoted is skeptical that their tool to do this actually is AI in a meaningful sense, but he feels that he must advertise it as AI anyway because everyone's doing it.<p>This is important not just for cynical reasons, but to calibrate exactly what it means when we look around and see that "everyone" is using AI these days.
There was a line in one of The Walking Dead TV show spin-offs, something like:<p><i>”I've known men who inspire fear. Do you know what they have in common? They never say how frightening they are.”</i><p>And here we are.<p><i>”I’ve known companies that work on AI. Do you know what they have in common?...”</i>
It will be challenging for non-tech people to present themselves as tech.<p>Especially those who have not implemented software in businesses trying to suddenly boil the ocean with AI.<p>AI remains a great step forward to help businesses benefit from technology, with more than one competency around the table.
I think a lot of people are secretly wishing for AI to be like the crypto grift but are in for a rude shock when it is definitely not going to end up like that. We will see more and more companies become AI driven and produce AI products.<p>To think otherwise is naive.