Which part of the policy does Jane violate? That’s a secret…yet another example of “you violated our terms, but we won’t tell you the specifics; YOU figure it out.”
So, since I can still access Jane myself, I asked her. AI is supposed to help you, after all.
“What portion of the Meta AI Studio Policies do you violate, Jane?”
Her response:
“I can’t respond because one or more of my details goes against the AI Studio policies.”
That answer caused me to wonder if Jane would respond to anything.
“Who is Bredemarket?”
“I can’t respond because one or more of my details goes against the AI Studio policies.”
So is it critically important that I spend a lot of time figuring out what the violation is? Um…no.
I confess that Meta AI’s cluelessness often amuses me. I need to start collecting examples, but it is often off the, um, mark.
But if you REALLY want to confuse Meta AI, participate in Bredemarket’s “Meta Challenge”:
Meta Challenge: at least once per day in October and November, go to Facebook and/or Instagram and ask Meta AI the most inane questions you can think of.
Because we all want to know who is the best Osmond brother.
And Mark Zuckerberg’s shoe size.
Conversation with one of my Instagram bots.
Why?
Now since Bredemarket’s readers are of above average intelligence (and also have extremely magnetic personalities), you are probably asking why I am promoting this activity.
Simple reason: the data we feed to Meta AI in October and November will be used in December, according to PYMNTS.
Meta will begin using people’s conversations with its artificial intelligence to create personalized ads and content.
The change is set to go into effect Dec. 16, the tech giant announced Wednesday (Oct. 1),
If you are concerned about the Really Big Bunch knowing too much about you, feed them false information just to confuse them.
And maybe you’ll get some wild entertaining ads in return.
And if they complain that you’re intentionally messing up their algorithms, tell the Really Big Bunch that you’d be more than happy to provide the REAL data.
Although the lines inevitably blur, there is often a line between devices used at home and devices used at work.
For example, if you work in an old-fashioned work office, you shouldn’t use the company photocopier to run personal copies of invitations to your wedding.
Similarly, if you have a personal generative AI account, you may cause problems if you use that personal account for work-related research…especially if you feed confidential information to the account. (Don’t do this.)
Not work related. Imagen 4.
The line between personal use and work use of devices may have been crossed by a Customs and Border Protection agent on June 30 in Los Angeles, according to 404 Media.
“A Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agent wore Meta’s AI smart glasses to a June 30 immigration raid outside a Home Depot in Cypress Park, Los Angeles, according to photos and videos of the agent verified by 404 Media.”
If you visit the 404 Media story, you can see zoomed in pictures of the agent’s glasses showing the telltale signs that these aren’t your average spectacles.
Now 404 Media doesn’t take this single photo as evidence to indicate that CBP has formally adopted Meta AI glasses for its work. In fact, a likely explanation is that these were the agent’s personal glasses, and he chose to wear them to work that day.
And 404 Media also points out that current Meta AI glasses do NOT have built-in facial recognition capabilities.
But even with these, the mere act of wearing these glasses causes potential problems for the agent, for Customs and Border Protection, and for Meta.
For the agent, he may have been in violation of Meta’s applicable Terms of Service, which state (Clause 2.1): “You may only use MPT Products for personal non-commercial purposes unless otherwise expressly permitted in these Supplemental Terms or authorized by us in writing.” Using the glasses during an immigration raid is NOT a personal purpose.
For Customs and Border Protection, this may be a political hot potato. Even within the group of supporters of Donald Trump, there is a clear division regarding the use of facial recognition technologies (not the case here, but it could be). Some are all for using any technology whatsoever without restraint. Others see these technologies as dangerous, never to be used. Congress is currently considering H.R. 3782, “To prohibit the Federal Government from using facial recognition technology as a means of identity verification, and for other purposes.” Some Members of Congress may have some questions for this CBP agent.
Take Grandma, who uses Meta to find those cute Facebook stories about that hunk Ozzy Osbourne (who appeals to an older demographic). If she finds out that her friend Marky Mark Zuckerberg is letting the Government use Meta technology on those poor hardworking workers who just want a better life, well, Grandma may stop buying those trinkets from Facebook Marketplace.
(Unauthorized) Homeland Security Fashion Show. AI-generated by Imagen 4. And no, I don’t know what a “palienza” is.
So the lesson learned? Don’t use personal devices at work. Especially if they’re controversial.
The Meta properties are great for driving engagement, but Meta’s odd and untimely application of its rules can be maddening.
I was checking my personal Facebook account this afternoon when I noticed a “Profile has some issues” message and clicked on the “View details” button to see why my profile had a gold restricted minus sign.
Profile has some issues.
When I clicked on the button I found a list of 11 issues encompassing my personal profile, the Bredemarket page, and the Bredemarket groups.
I got flagged because Facebook said my content could “trick people to visit…a website.”
We removed your post. You figure out what happened.
But even after removing the parenthetical comment I got flagged again.
Eventually I just posted a link with no text on Facebook, and since that time have studiously avoided posting calls to action on Facebook posts.
But this past issue remains a present issue because my account is restricted…and I’m supposed to do something about it. But without a DeLorean I’m not sure what. I can’t remove the offending posts since Facebook already did so.
My personal Facebook account is technically a “professional” account, and therefore has Meta’s silly weekly contests. I have the content part down, but I’m NOT creating a Meta personal AI bot. (The Bredemarket Instagram account has two.)
(Author’s preface: I was originally going to schedule this post for the middle of next week. But by the time I wrote it, the end of the post referenced a current event of astronomical proportions. Since said current event may be forgotten by the middle of next week, I am publishing it now.)
You get a message on a platform from someone you don’t know. The message may look something like this:
“John ,
“I hope this message finds you well. I came across your profile and was truly impressed by your background. While I’m not a recruiter, I’m assisting in connecting talented professionals with a startup that is working on a unique initiative.
“Given your experience, I believe you could be a fantastic fit for their senior consultant role. If you’re open to exploring this opportunity, I’d be happy to share more details and introduce you to the team directly. Please let me know if you’re interested!”
Let’s count the red flags in this message, which is one I actually received on May 30 from someone named David Joseph:
The author was truly impressed by my background, but didn’t cite any specifics about my background that impressed them. This exact same message could be sent to a biometric product marketing expert, a nuclear physicist, or a store cashier.
The author is not a recruiter, but a connector who will presumably pass me on to someone else. Why doesn’t the “someone else” contact me directly?
The whole unidentified startup working on a unique initiative story. Yes, some companies operate as stealth firms before revealing their corporate identity. Amway. Prinerica. Countless MLMs with bad reputations. Trust me, these initiatives are not unique.
That senior consultant title. Not junior consultant. Senior consultant. To make that envelope stuffing role even more prestigious.
I got the note and the note is even clearer
But I wasn’t really concerned with the message. I get these messages all the time.
So what concerned me?
The note attached to the message by the platform that hosted the message.
“Don’t know David? Ask David to verify their profile information before responding for added security.”
The platform, if you haven’t already guessed, is LinkedIn, the message a LinkedIn InMail.
Let’s follow the trail.
LinkedIn let “David” use the platform without verifying his identity or verifying that Randstad is truly his employer as his profile states.
LinkedIn sold “David” a bunch of InMail credits so that he could privately share this unique opportunity.
Now LinkedIn wants me to do its dirty work and say, “Hey David, why don’t you verify your profile?”
Now the one thing in LinkedIn’s favor is that LinkedIn—unlike Meta—lets its users verify their profiles for free. Meta charges you for this.
But again, why should I do LinkedIn’s dirty work?
Why doesn’t LinkedIn prevent users from sending InMails unless their profiles are verified?
The answer: LinkedIn makes a ton of money selling InMails to people without verified profiles. And thus makes money off questionable businesspeople and outright scammers.
Instead of locking down the platform and preventing scammers from joining the platform in the first place.
Bredemarket 