Going from personalization to hyperindividualization through GenAI

19

October

2023

No ratings yet.

Many say that companies exist to fullfill the needs of groups in society. But the problem remains that whenever a product is designed for a group, there will be an often smaller group of individuals whose needs are served only partially, because the solution offered by the company may not be ideal for their situation.  And so many companies carve a niche for themselves through further differentiating their products in a manner that serves an even smaller group in society. But a company can only differentiate their products to a certain degree, before they are left with the problem that the group they are targeting is so small, it isn’t profitable anymore.

However in many use cases right now, and in even more use cases as technology further develops, generative AI may allow for even stronger personalization and differentation of products. As this is still quite abstract, let me give an example. Roughly a year ago I spoke with a PostNL employee who belonged to a group whose main task was to increase the sales of their own postcards. While in the far past they were an important tool for communication across long distances, in the modern day telephones have made them more or less obsolete. That is not to say they serve no purpose, but their main purpose has arguably dissapeared. The employee told me that one large reason as to why people still sent such cards was for birthdays, after research it showed that many people felt that sending a postcard for birthdays was much more personal than sending a text message. Another was convenience, a person could easily through the website or PostNL app send a card. PostNL’s current system allows a person to add a picture that will be printed on the card. After he told me about this, I came up with the suggestion to use a text-to-image generator to create unique designs for the postcards. If you sent a postcard to a person that loved art, you could for example ask for a design in the style of Vincent Van Gogh. This idea was quite a few steps too far he told me. But that does not necessarily mean that the idea itself is unfeasible. Through the use of GenAI people could perhaps create highly personalized versions of a product for themselves, while also being able to have their own input into the final product, allowing for great individualization.

Of course, one huge problem with this would be a matter of cost. While printing a design on a postcard created through some text2img AI may be feasible, using some ChatGPT style AI to customize a vacuum cleaner is not very realistic. But at the same time I don’t believe people necessarily desire a personalized vacuum, rather I think people would prefer personalized designs for objects they use to express themselves. I could imagine people being very interested in creating their own clothing designs as an example, and if this clothing design simply exists out of putting a print and some colors on a t-shirt or hoodie, this would be quite doable.

So what do you guys think, is there a future in which this technique of hyperindividualization becomes a part of mainstreams shops? Or will it just be an odd service offered by companies situated in odd corners of the internet? And can you imagine any other interesting use cases of personalization of products through GenAI?

Please rate this

Ethical concerns of local AI

17

October

2023

No ratings yet.

Several years ago, before ChatGPT helped catapult the view of AI as a helpful tool that many of us will use daily, tools with similar use cases already existed. They were quit a bit more primitive, but still managed to make the news a couple of times, often in a negative context. One of these tools was an app called ‘DeepNude’, this tool rightfully garnered a lot of criticism, because it allowed you to turn a picture of someone into a nude picture (Cole, 2019). After the backlash this app was quickly taken offline, but it showed a snapshot of some of the negative effects of Generative AI. DeepNude app taken offline after backlash (Collective Shout, n.d.)


Compared to 2019, the playing field has changed quite a lot. For image generation, currently the most well-known tools would most likely be Midjourney and DALL-E. But another famous one, which strongly differs from the previous two tools, would be Stable Diffusion. The main difference is that in the case of Midjourney and DALL-E, you make use of a service provided by these companies online to generate images. But Stable Diffusion differs from these two by the fact that Stable Diffusion can be run completely offline and locally on one’s one computer. This fact allows for Stable Diffusion to offer a much greater freedom to it’s users, which ties us back to ‘DeepNude’. While this app was swiftly taken offline after backlash, and while the users of services such as Midjourney are required to adhere to certain rules, users of SD can do as they please. This of course means that they can generate images of other people, and through the Dreambooth extension on SD, of which many guides have been put on the internet, this is also very possible.


This brings me to a question, should SD be regulated and if so how? It’s something I’ve thought about while using this app. The potential of deepfakes in general is quite high, but is it even feasible to ban something such as SD? After all how would you be able to control for it? This is not to mention the fact that SD is not inherently a ‘bad’ tool, rather it is something bad actors could use for nefarious purposes. But at the same time the increased freedom of SD compared to other generative image AI allows some legitimate artists to use it as part of their workflow, to speed up the process, or perhaps to increase the creativity of their art (Edwards, 2023). Although many artists have complained about such AI, claiming ethical concerns such as copyright breaches and theft, and many are worried about their financial prospects if large companies start replacing them, making this another complexity to handle when talking about AI regulation. Of course it may also be used as a simple tool of entertainment for many, allowing them to quickly generate interesting images through the use of its text-to-image functionality.


With all this in mind perhaps a more reasonable approach may be to ban the creation and sharing of all deepfakes, and to punish the people that do so with jail time and/or fines. Tracing whoever shared harmful deepfakes is much more feasible while it doesn’t discourage the positive uses of such a program. What are your thoughts on the matter? Should such offline AI perhaps be regulated much more severly, and if so how?

References:
Cole, S. (2019, 26 juni). This Horrifying App Undresses a Photo of Any Woman With a Single Click. vice.com. https://www.vice.com/en/article/kzm59x/deepnude-app-creates-fake-nudes-of-any-woman
Collective Shout (n.d.) DeepNude app taken offline after backlash. https://www.collectiveshout.org/deepnude_app_taken_offline
Edwards, P. (2023, 2 mei). Why this AI art took 17 hours to make. Vox. https://www.vox.com/videos/2023/5/2/23708076/ai-artist-stelfie-process-workflow

Please rate this