alt Hacker NewsAnother situation where bad actors benefit. From the article:
> What really interests Cian, who has published research[1] exploring how audiences tend to have less trust in media outlets that are transparent about their AI use, is the fact that the Post disclosed its use of algorithmic pricing at all. “If you ask people [whether they] want transparency on what’s behind your pricing strategy, people say ‘yes,'” he says. “But what we found in my research is a paradox, in the sense that people think that they want to know, but once they know, the reaction is worse than not knowing.”
> [1] https://ideas.darden.virginia.edu/AI-disclosure-dilemma
Replies
> But what we found in my research is a paradox, in the sense that people think that they want to know, but once they know, the reaction is worse than not knowing.
"People said they wanted to know if companies were putting feces into chocolate, but once they know, they stop buying that 'chocolate'. The reaction is worse than not knowing! What a paradox! The revealed preference is that consumers want companies to secretly include feces. I am a professor."
It shouldn't be surprising that a company who might be using a scummy pricing strategy gets less blow-back than one who comes right out and brazenly says they are using a scummy pricing strategy. When the action is bad, admitting to it and continuing to do it shows contempt.
It's as though you caught a thief rifling through your pockets and they just looked you in the eye and said, "You caught me. I'm not stopping. What are you going to do about it chump?"