Some growth team probably has goal to move a metric. This promotion is one of their experiments. If they move the metric, they can cite that in their performance review. If the promotion causes bad PR (see this thread) and none of the pre-launch reviews flagged it, they can then share what they learned with others in the company. They will say something like “lead a cross functional team to develop best practices for use of AI-generated pictures of a user in promotions” in their pronounce review.

Either way, we get experimented on like lab rates and they get their bonus.

Agree with your sentiment, but I'd take it one step further: why doesn't anyone calling the shots at Meta realize just how uncool it is to do such a thing? Which is the same reaction I had to their recent AI influencers.

It speaks to their seeming inability to read the zeitgeist on the general public's attitude towards generative AI at the moment. I'm generally "pro AI", in that I think generative AI is incredibly interesting tech that can potentially be used to create some very cool (and maybe even helpful) things. But "AI" has become a dirty word among the people I know who aren't living in our tech bubble - uncool at best, and evil at worst.

And every time I see something like this, I understand perfectly why they feel that way. Every new hamfisted or creepy attempt at inserting AI into everything by companies like Meta just digs the hole even deeper for people's perception of generative AI.

In an old-school yay internet sense, it's fun like amusement park rides taking your photo. But in a modern sense, it's just creepy.

I wonder that in regards to just about everything they do.