Really, none? Was Microsoft nefarious when they deployed Clippy? I feel like there is an incredibly obvious reason that is not nefarious at all: the average consumer likes cute things
reply> Was Microsoft nefarious when they deployed Clippy?
replyYes. It was predictive programming for getting (paper)clipped by AI.
The average consumer doesn’t have a $100+ ChatGPT Pro subscription though.
replyIsn't that a vote for 'not nefarious' as they are not deploying it widely across their user base? Unclear on the point
replyMy point is that your argument regarding the average customer doesn’t seem to apply. But neither do I believe in a nefarious motive.
replyPeople are already doing most of the work of anthropomorphising LLMs, so OpenAI is just capitalizing on that. Drawing a face on it will make people even more attached to the LLM, they will treat it even more like a person. If they ever get desperate for money they could change the cancel flow to have the cute character plead not to die, and play a cartoony animation of its death when the subscription is canceled. It would stop at least a few users.
replyGood point. I've though about my own mental attitude when interacting with AI agents. When they do something good I feel like saying "Thank You". Does that make sense? I guess it does because it communicates to the model their output was correct. But it feels silly to say "thank You" to a machine. I guess I just have to get over it?
replyI actually greatly appreciate that I can put something cute on my sister's PC that comes from a developer that won't bundle it with malware. Seems like they fail miserably at being evil.
replyWhat’s nefarious about attracting users?
replyIt could be to market more towards women, who they may have both independently determined aren't paying for AI as much. I don't have any data to go one way or another but I can imagine lots of reasons to make the agent cute that aren't nefarious
reply