Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

We are all waiting for plot twist that these actually work better than human made ads and the weirder they get the worse humans can compete with them.


this plot twist happened years ago.

anyway, the main theory of better ad performance from generated ads isn't about, being weird or whatever. it's that few ads on social media are matching with intent to buy, i.e., they are the opposite of google search ads. so there's a much higher diversity of creatives. like, "saturation", like you see the ad so much, you are psychologically going to choose whatever product it is hawking when it finally comes time for you to buy a thing in the category it belongs to. generative ads are merely delivering ad creative development work that SMBs (40% of Meta's revenue) are too unsophisticated to use.


Honestly? They might. A game I play (Torn.com) started using AI and over dramatic ads, and they outperformed (higher signups, and higher retention) the more traditional and even player created ads.

The owner expressed surprise and frustration over it, because it kinda sucks that's what works.


Could we(AI ads) be hitting this? "Supernormal Stimulus"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernormal_stimulus


Newspapers and cheap gin were already supernormal stimuli 200 years ago.


I think you can add to that things like fast foods, snacks etc with carefully tuned levels of fats , salts, sugars etc to keep people eating.


And cheap paperback novels, movies, TV, pornography and video games. The amount of stimulation or positive reward available through these things with only a small effort and a small risk and a short waiting time are much greater than anything available in the environment of evolutionary adaptedness with a similar degree of effort, risk and waiting time.


Not sure if that was an attempt to reduce my argument to an absurdity.. but now we can see many of those things evolve and adapt in real time with lots of testing to reach their maximum potential.


>an attempt to reduce my argument to an absurdity

Definitely not. I am being sincere.

There is a lot of individual variation in susceptibility to a vice. For example, I never had any significant amount of trouble avoiding any food I believed was bad for me. It just never required much willpower, but it is so easy for me to fall into a habit of overconsumption of video entertainment that I haven't owned a television set in decades (and lichess.org is blocked 3 times in my /etc/hosts: near the top, again near the middle and again near the end of the file).


>Definitely not. I am being sincere.

haha no worries, i may be insecure and seeing the flaws in my own argument there..

Similar in some ways i've tried things in my 20's that should have got me hooked but never felt the urge to do or seek out those things. Can't watch TV either but computer games on the other hand... absolutely hooked.


Yeah, as someone who spends a lot of money every month buying Meta ads, I had that thought looking at some of the article's examples.

But in its current form, I think that may happen mostly for very direct-response ads, while creating branding problems that would be expensive for many companies in the long run.

Also, some of the AI-generated creatives and copy that Meta has suggested to me actually misleads or flat-out lies about what is being advertised. Which makes me wonder if the American FTC will go after some companies for running misleading ads at some point, if they are not careful about what suggestions they accept (the ad manager UI currently makes it extremely easy to accidentally approve something you shouldn't).


Elsagate is back, and this time she's after boomer gold.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: