 |
|
|
|||||
As the arms race in the artificial intelligence world ramps up, Big Tech companies are rushing to become your default AI source. Meta, last week, launched the Meta AI app to challenge ChatGPT and Google’s Gemini. It’s a system that measures up feature-wise with its competition and some might argue it improves on some aspects. But with Meta’s long history of privacy problems, it’s reawakening some old concerns about the company. The tool offers “personalized” answer and advice as well as a social network for people to share their AI conversations and images. But if you’re looking to scrub the system’s memory of you, that’s a bit more challenging. And our early tests show the tool still could use some polishing when it comes to accuracy. In my first conversation with Meta AI, the chatbot offered to create a hype intro for me. How could I refuse? Meta, after all, has plenty of my personal data on file from my Facebook, Instagram, and Threads accounts, not to mention my use of the Quest AI headset. So, I figured, it should be able to describe me pretty well. Here’s what it said: “You’ve got that effortlessly cool, indie vibe going on, like you’re perpetually sipping coffee in a vintage bookstore. You’re probably a fan of obscure indie bands, spend hours curating your Spotify playlists and have a fondness for vinyl records. Your wardrobe’s probably filled with thrifted cardigans and skinny jeans and you can wax poetic about the merits of artisanal coffee versus your local coffee shop’s brew.” Meta AI, apparently, thinks I am a total hipster. While it might have been trying to suck up to me in that summary, boy did it whiff on the facts. I don’t drink coffee. I like the Beatles, The Who, and ’80s and ’90s pop. The only curating I’ve done on Spotify is re-creating playlists from concerts I’ve gone to. And, as I munch on my second fistful of Fritos Queso Flavor Twists in the past five minutes, I can promise you that there are no skinny jeans in my wardrobe, nor will there ever be. Obviously, the AI has a ways to go, but then again . . . most AI systems still do. Still, Meta’s AI made an aggressive effort to get to know me better as we chatted (rather than requiring you to type in your replies, Meta’s app welcomes voice chat), asking me about everything from my favorite book to my political views. While it’s not hard to appreciate an AI system’s efforts to learn more so it can answer questions with a response tailored to the person asking them, Meta’s history with handling personal information in the past could give some users pause. Meta AI keeps a history of your chats, archiving your inputs and its replies. It also, however, keeps what it calls a Memory file, with specific pieces of information, based on your previous talks. Those Memories and the transcripts of previous talks can be deleted, but there is a bit of hunting that you’ll have to do to find where they’re stored. (And, as The Washington Post points out, you’ll need to delete both the Memory and the chat history where the system learned that factoid for it to be completely erased.) You’ll also have to trust Meta has permanently deleted the information orif you choose not to delete itthat it will use the information responsibly. That may be a big ask for some people, given the recent information provided by whistleblower Sarah Wynn-Williams, who told the Senate Judiciary Committee in April that Meta is able to identify when users are feeling helpless and can use that as a cue for advertisers. (Meta denied the allegations at the time, telling TechCrunch the testimony was “divorced from reality and riddled with false claims.”) Meta AI said it didn’t have access to my Facebook account or to any pictures or visual content when I asked about its access. And when I tested it by asking about a few recent posts, it seemed to not know what I was talking about, though when I asked if it had access to my Instagram page it got a bit squirrely. Meta AI says beyond our conversations, it uses “information about things like your interests, location, profile, and activity on Meta products.” I then asked about something related to my Instagram page and it said it did not have real-time access “or any information about your current activity or interests on the platform.” When I tried to press for more information, it regurgitated the same answer about “interests, location, profile, and activity.” A Meta spokesperson told Fast Company, “Weve provided valuable personalization for people on our platforms for decades, making it easier for people to accomplish what they come to our apps to dothe Meta AI app is no different. We provide transparency and control throughout, so people can manage their experience and make sure it’s right for them. This release is the first version, and we’re excited to get it in people’s hands and gather their feedback.” People who use Meta AI to inquire about or discuss deeply personal matters should be aware that the company is retaining that information and could use it to target advertising. (Ads are not part of the platform now, but Mark Zuckerberg has made it clear he sees great revenue potential in AI. Competitor Google, meanwhile, has reportedly begun showing ads in chats with some third-party AI systems, though not Meta AI.) That may be fine if Meta AI eventually tries to upsell me Frito Twists or (shudder) skinny jeans, but it’s a lot more concerning if it’s mining your deepest secrets and insecurities to make a buck.
Category:
E-Commerce
He just put it in bold! exclaimed Ryan Goslings character in a Saturday Night Live video that attracted a cult following in the world of graphic design last year. The follow-up to a 2017 SNL bit in which Gosling played a man haunted by his realization that the logo for the 2009 blockbuster Avatar was expressed in the gauche Papyrus typeface, the newer video centered on his fresh horror of discovering that the same graphic designer responsible for the first logo had updated the wordmark for the movies sequel by simply setting it in bold type. A year later, it seems that life is imitating satire, as, following last weeks announcement of Amazons brand refresh, 2025s three biggest rebrands to dateincluding those of Walmart in January and OpenAI in Februaryhave, to the untrained eye, more or less involved hitting Ctrl+B on the companies wordmarks and logos to put them in bold. [Images: Walmart] All three of these corporate behemoths updated wordmarks are somewhat heavier than their predecessors, while not representing radical changes. Unlike Walmarts brutalist look of a generation ago, with its massive and intimidating all-caps, sharp-cornered letterforms projecting its retail dominance, these new marks are all clean, respectable sans-serifs with enough roundedness to signal a degree of friendliness and approachability. Perhaps this style might be dubbed Blanding Bold. [Images: Amazon] Their associated symbolic elements have undergone a similar transformation. While OpenAIs blossom, Walmarts spark, and Amazons smile all look basically the same as they did before, much to the consternation of some social media users who feel personally affronted that these expensive rebrands did not result in more noticeable changes, the differences are there. [Images: OpenAI] The blossoms strokes have thickened and evened, improving its overall composition while still allowing it to evoke an unfolding flower, a foreboding whirlpool, or imagery of a more alimentary nature. The new spark met the approval of logo guru Armin Vit, who called it softer, warmer, and more friendly while being so much better executed, and noted that the bolder weight of the segments gives the icon more presence and strength to stand on its own as it moves forward as the companys primary logo. And the Amazon logo received an injection of lip filler, resulting in what the design agency Koto calls a deeper and more emphatic smile (to the extent that a smile can be emphatic). [Images: OpenAI] While the rebrands of these three giants, with their estimated combined value of $3 trillion, have attracted the most attention, this bold new trend in corporate graphics has been spotted in many other quarters over the past year or so, including PayPal, ABC, Reddit, the CW network, Workday, the Guggenheim, Herman Miller, Eventbrite, Crumbl, New York City Football Club, New York Botanical Garden, and even Fluz. Patient zero in this outbreak might be the 2019 Slack redesign, in which the wordmark was Ctrl+Bd and the logos hot dog shapes plumped just like Ball Park Franks. What accounts for all this boldness? Companies have long expressed the desire to get more bang for their branding buck; Make the logo bigger is a common refrain among design clients (and one that designers tend to dread hearing). It would seem that making the logo bolder is the next best thing, allowing for more logo per square inch, a denser deployment of general logo essence, and a symbol that, like Amazons, is more emphatic overall. For what brand would not want its logo to be emphasized? And if a companys goal is to use its logo to communicate boldness as a brand attribute, the single most obvious, literal, no-brainer way to do so is to just put it in bold.
Category:
E-Commerce
Artificial intelligence. Its pretty cool, I guess? Look at those neat videos. And the thousands of product design iterations just to get those creative balls rolling. Sure. Awesome. Or is it? Maybe. Who knows. All that seems to be the summary of Figmas 2025 AI Report, based on a survey of 2,500 designers and developers. While tools like ChatGPT and Figmas AI features are embedded in daily workflows, the report reveals a stark disconnect. Enthusiasm for AIs potential is high, but its practical impact remains uneven, the numbers show, constrained by vague goals, quality concerns, and cooling expectations. The report underscores a paradox: professionals see AI as essential to their future, but struggle to meaningfully harness it today. It kind of fits my own experience. Its there, but not there yet. Figmas study shows that a staggering 76% of AI projects prioritize vague objectives like experimenting with AI over concrete goals such as revenue growth, with an eye-popping 9%. It makes me weep for all the gigawatts evaporating in the name of a revolution that’s not actually happening, at least for designers and developers. The ambiguity reflects the technologys nascent state, Figmas Head of Insights Andrew Hogan tells me in a phone interview. Theres a lot of play and experimentation happeningits natural, he explains, comparing the current moment to early mobile app development, where rapid iteration preceded clear use cases. One survey respondent likened building AI products to running a restaurant where the menu changes daily, a metaphor Hogan calls the quote of the survey. So much contradiction Im not so sure about that parallelism with mobile app development, which struck me as a much faster, much more impactful revolution than AI, in practical, tangible economical terms, not just paper gains. Past technological shifts, like desktop publishing or the iPhone, delivered seismic industry changes within months. By comparison, AIs impact feels incremental and anecdotal. Sure, there are brilliant examples of big AI impacts in some industriesmostly audiovisualbut having a synthetic research minion, a repetitive-task assistant, or an artificial creative buddy dont seem quite as revolutionary as a billion smartphones taking over our lives. Hogan acknowledges the tension and, at the same time, has a warning: Companies risk dismissing AI too early if experiments fail to yield quick wins, potentially missing strategic advantages. He also says that, while the research highlights these contradictory data points between expectations/desires and reality, the data shows real progress: 34% of Figma users shipped AI products this year, up from 22% in 2024. The question is whether the vague goalsagain, back to the figure of 76% of companies saying lets play, throw some mud against the wall and see if it stickswill harden into measurable ROI before disillusionment sets in. The research shows that there are efficiency gains thanks to AI. But there’s a dichotomy here, too. Seventy-eight percent of professionals say it speeds up their work (up from 71% last year), but only 58% believe it improves quality, while 47% feel it makes them better at their jobs. What about the ones who think the quality is just the same or worse, and the 53% who dont think AI makes them better at their jobs? Its a strange, puzzling juxtaposition. Developers report higher satisfaction (67% say AI boosts work quality) than designers (40%), partly because code generation tools offer clearer utility. Designers, meanwhile, grapple with generative AIs unpredictable outputs. Hogan attributes this gap to the limitations of how we as humans interact with these things, not the technology itself. He cites Amaras Law: We overestimate short-term change and underestimate long-term transformation. Mobile took years to reshape industries, he says, pointing to Ubers evolution. Yet tools like ChatGPT sparked expectations of rapid, iPhone-level disruptiona bar AI hasnt yet cleared. Cooling expectations Despite 85% of professionals calling AI essential for future success, expectations for its near-term impact are cooling. Only 27% predict AI will significantly influence company goals in the next year, unchanged from 2024. Hogan frames this as a recalibration, not disillusionment. The hype gets ahead of what most people can do today, he says, likening AIs trajectory to the internets gradual adoption. Yet the Cambrian explosion of AI appslike the one that happened with the iPhones appsis yet to come. Sure, there are niche applications like medical document interpreters or predictive maintenance tools, but where are the truly transformative apps beyond being able to talk to glorified Wikipedia oracles? Wheres the Uber of AI? The answer may lie in agentic AI, the fastest-growing product category. These tools, which automate multistep tasks, saw a 143% year-over-year surge in development (from 21% in 2024 to 51% in 2025). But Hogan warns they require rethinking design principles. When should an agent check in with users? What information should it share? Designs role here is critical52% of builders say design is more important for AI products than traditional ones, as intuitive interfaces bridge the gap between capability and usability. AIs paradoxubiquitous yet underutilized, and underwhelming for a large partstems from its adolescence. Designers and developers are caught between excitement, collective hysteria, and pragmatism, navigating a landscape where prototyping and iteration matter more than ever. The technologys potential is real, yes. Code generation already accelerates development, and is used by 59% of developers. Agentic tools promise workflow revolutions, and adoption is rising. But without clearer goals, trust in outputs, and design-led refinement, AI risks becoming a toolbox without a blueprint. As Hogan puts it, Were still early. The challenge isnt whether AI will reshape design, but whether teams can evolve their processes fast enough to meet its uneven promise. For now, the future belongs to those who treat AI not as a magic wand, but as claymalleable, demanding, and far from fully molded.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||