Optics Overview: FTC Good, OpenAI bad, Garmin ugly
Another installment in The Dejargonizer’s regular Optics Overview Edition.
///newsletter boilerplate///
Welcome to The Dejargonizer, a newsletter for communications pros, marketers, content creators, journalists, investors, and anyone who appreciates good storytelling (and hates jargon). You can read more about the newsletter here.
////New edition intro////
What does "the optics of that won't be good" mean? As in, the action or decision you are about to take may be feasible, but its “optics” won’t look good. For example, a company laying off a large number of employees while simultaneously announcing record profits could have bad optics, as it may be perceived as prioritizing profits over people. ///Link to previous Optics Overview edition////
///New Edition///
///First Section: Excellent Optics///
This is very, very good dejargonization from the US Federal Trade Commission, which has published a warning and guide to company marketers about the use of AI, called Keep your AI claims in check.
Mad respect for the FTC. Readers of The Dejargonizer may recall a recent post about this very thing.
///More Good///
Solid business feature by The Sunday Times, with cool art. I love Adidas, and it doesn’t come out looking so bad in this, especially compared with Ye. This is a great inside look into how damaged the core Adidas brand had become and the trade-offs they are struggling with.
///Even Gooder///
Everything about this Bloomberg Opinion piece is top shelf. The punchy headline that hits you in the mouthful. It’s like SEO optimized and mainlined into the news bloodstream.
The choice of image seems eminently apt. Borderline iconic. The caption is spot on.
The clear and concise secondary headline lays out the whole story.
The article itself makes clever use of geopolitical jargon like multipolarity and multilateralism. Well worth a read. Andreas Kluth is masterful storyteller.
//////Best Good/////
An example of powerful visual storytelling in this harrowing Ukraine war photo essay by The Economist 1843 Magazine.
///Second Section: Not so great optics///
I’d wager that if there was one publication that Oxford University really wouldn’t want to feature in a negative story like this, it would be The Economist. And definitely not in a Long Read.
///Worser Optics///
This is really good dejargonization from VentureBeat’s Sharon Goldman, who rips OpenAI a new AI-hole over their new Manifesto.
I don’t love businesses producing manifestos, as if they were political parties or a group of concerned philosophers. I feel it very rarely deserves the same kind of serious attention that some well-known manifestos do. Like these:
However, in this case, OpenAI is a business that’s at the forefront of AI applications. It says it’s working toward Artificial General Intelligence (whatever that means) and that this might be the best or worst thing that’s ever happened to us humans since the discovery of fire.
Its ChatGPT AI writing app reached 100 million users in 2 months, making it the fastest-growing consumer Internet app ever.
With great market share comes great responsibility.
OpenAI is dealing in some pretty amazing and scary stuff. That legitimately makes a lot of people take a closer look at what they’re up to. You’d bet that if these new masters of the universe release a manifesto, it would come under serious dejargonization microscopy.
OpenAI may have miscalculated some of the not-insignificant blowback to its Manifesto release. In hindsight, it could have been easy to recalibrate the tone of the Manifesto to be more humble. But that wouldn’t be Silicon Valley Manifestos would it?
///Final Section: Optics that could kill///
I tried to log into a Google service. It didn’t work out, and Google sent me this curt, passive-aggressive auto error response.
That’s an error Google, I cannot process your error message because it is unclear and uses technical jargon I cannot understand.
What does “malformed” mean? Is that a technical term, or subjective criticism of my request?
Also I’m not 100% clear as to whether “the request” was malformed, or whether “the server”, which cannot process the request, is itself malformed —could you please clarify?
Also, how I am supposed to know what should not be tried if I do not know what is malformed, my request or your server?
I might even say your response was malformed. That’s all I know.
Amir
P.S. is your robot OK? It looks a bit malformed.
///Worser optics///
Is Garmin trying to kill me?
I wear a Garmin sports watch all the time and track my health data religiously.
My spouse regularly checks up on my exercise stats and this situation could become a problem if she starts asking questions.
This is disconcerting. I was alive this week, I know I was. I have multiple sources on the record confirming this. My alibi is bulletproof.
I asked Garmin for clarification. I didn’t get a real answer I could use, but they did send me a survey!
///Optics Overview Edition Ends///