
? 可口可樂新推出的廣告似乎誤將一本虛構(gòu)書籍標(biāo)注為作家詹姆斯·格雷厄姆·巴拉德(J.G. Ballard)的作品,。廣告中引用的文本實(shí)際節(jié)選自一本收錄該作家多場訪談的合集,,而該書在作家去世多年后才出版。這一明顯失誤再次引發(fā)爭議,,延續(xù)了其早前人工智能生成圣誕廣告的風(fēng)波,。
可口可樂最新的人工智能廣告疑似存在事實(shí)混淆問題,。在4月推出的“經(jīng)典”廣告活動中,,該公司旨在展示品牌名稱出現(xiàn)在經(jīng)典文學(xué)中的案例。廣告中提及了斯蒂芬·金(Stephen King)的《閃靈》(The Shining)和維迪亞達(dá)·蘇萊普拉薩德·奈保爾(V. S. Naipaul)的《畢司沃斯先生的房子》(A House for Mr. Biswas),,然而,,它還提及了詹姆斯·格雷厄姆·巴拉德所著的《極端隱喻》(Extreme Metaphors)——而此書實(shí)為虛構(gòu)。
廣告所引內(nèi)容實(shí)則出自《極端隱喻:詹姆斯·格雷厄姆·巴拉德訪談錄(1967-2008)》(Extreme Metaphors: Selected Interviews with J. G. Ballard 1967-2008)——這部由丹·奧哈拉(Dan O’Hara)與西蒙·塞拉斯(Simon Sellars)共同編纂的訪談合集,,于2012年巴拉德逝世三年后出版,。
廣告畫面中,有人用打字機(jī)敲出小說段落,,而涉及可口可樂的部分,,公司將打字機(jī)字體替換為品牌標(biāo)志性的紅色標(biāo)識,。在向媒體發(fā)布的廣告宣傳圖中,可口可樂還展示了模擬的書頁圖片,,似乎將《極端隱喻》的作者標(biāo)注為詹姆斯·格雷厄姆·巴拉德,。
“廣告中臆想的詹姆斯·格雷厄姆·巴拉德敲出的這段文字從未由他本人撰寫,只是他曾發(fā)表的言論,,而唯一用英文原封不動敲出這段文字的人是我,。”該書編纂者奧哈拉告訴率先披露此事的404Media記者伊曼紐爾·邁伯格(Emanuel Maiberg),。
他補(bǔ)充道:“最令我憤慨的是廣告中出現(xiàn)了‘Shangai’一詞,。巴拉德絕不會拼錯(cuò)自己出生城市的名字。這則廣告觸發(fā)了我的‘學(xué)術(shù)神經(jīng)官能癥’:是我弄錯(cuò)了嗎,?我檢查了《極端隱喻》的樣書,,謝天謝地,原文印的是正確的‘Shanghai’,?!?
“檢索階段”使用人工智能
與可口可樂合作打造該宣傳活動的營銷機(jī)構(gòu)VML向404Media表示,人工智能被用于“初步文獻(xiàn)檢索,,以識別提及品牌的書籍”,,但公司對相關(guān)信息進(jìn)行了人工事實(shí)核查,并聯(lián)系了多位作者,、出版商及版權(quán)繼承人以獲取許可,。
奧哈拉表示,他擔(dān)心這則廣告會誤導(dǎo)觀眾,,讓他們以為自己對巴拉德訪談內(nèi)容的翻譯是作家親筆創(chuàng)作的散文作品,。
奧哈拉告訴404Media :“廣告呈現(xiàn)的文本并非其散文原作,而是我對巴拉德法語訪談錄音的編譯轉(zhuǎn)寫,。我已竭力忠實(shí)傳遞其思想內(nèi)核,,但也僅能做到這點(diǎn)。我的文字遠(yuǎn)不及原作,,我覺得任何看過廣告并認(rèn)為這段文字平淡無奇的人,,既符合事實(shí)判斷,又被誤導(dǎo)認(rèn)為這是巴拉德親筆創(chuàng)作的內(nèi)容,?!?
截至發(fā)稿,可口可樂和VML的代表尚未回應(yīng)《財(cái)富》雜志的置評請求,。
可口可樂的人工智能爭議
這并非可口可樂首次因在廣告中使用生成式人工智能引發(fā)爭議,。
去年年底,該公司發(fā)布了一系列人工智能生成的圣誕廣告,,在網(wǎng)上招致批評,。部分藝術(shù)家,、電影制作人和觀眾抨擊這些廣告風(fēng)格怪異、質(zhì)量欠佳,,認(rèn)為其本質(zhì)是通過技術(shù)替代創(chuàng)意勞動力的降本舉措,。
許多藝術(shù)家和創(chuàng)意從業(yè)者一直抗議創(chuàng)意行業(yè)使用人工智能,指出該技術(shù)可能取代創(chuàng)作者,,且人工智能模型在訓(xùn)練時(shí)未經(jīng)許可使用創(chuàng)作者的作品,,既未注明來源,也未給予報(bào)酬,。
其中一則旨在致敬可口可樂1995年經(jīng)典廣告“節(jié)日來臨”(Holidays Are Coming)的人工智能廣告,,其畫面中的人物和卡車都是由人工智能生成的,被社交媒體用戶斥為“毫無靈魂”,、“完全缺乏真正的創(chuàng)造力”,。 (財(cái)富中文網(wǎng))
譯者:中慧言-王芳
? 可口可樂新推出的廣告似乎誤將一本虛構(gòu)書籍標(biāo)注為作家詹姆斯·格雷厄姆·巴拉德(J.G. Ballard)的作品。廣告中引用的文本實(shí)際節(jié)選自一本收錄該作家多場訪談的合集,,而該書在作家去世多年后才出版,。這一明顯失誤再次引發(fā)爭議,延續(xù)了其早前人工智能生成圣誕廣告的風(fēng)波,。
可口可樂最新的人工智能廣告疑似存在事實(shí)混淆問題,。在4月推出的“經(jīng)典”廣告活動中,該公司旨在展示品牌名稱出現(xiàn)在經(jīng)典文學(xué)中的案例,。廣告中提及了斯蒂芬·金(Stephen King)的《閃靈》(The Shining)和維迪亞達(dá)·蘇萊普拉薩德·奈保爾(V. S. Naipaul)的《畢司沃斯先生的房子》(A House for Mr. Biswas),,然而,它還提及了詹姆斯·格雷厄姆·巴拉德所著的《極端隱喻》(Extreme Metaphors)——而此書實(shí)為虛構(gòu),。
廣告所引內(nèi)容實(shí)則出自《極端隱喻:詹姆斯·格雷厄姆·巴拉德訪談錄(1967-2008)》(Extreme Metaphors: Selected Interviews with J. G. Ballard 1967-2008)——這部由丹·奧哈拉(Dan O’Hara)與西蒙·塞拉斯(Simon Sellars)共同編纂的訪談合集,,于2012年巴拉德逝世三年后出版。
廣告畫面中,,有人用打字機(jī)敲出小說段落,,而涉及可口可樂的部分,公司將打字機(jī)字體替換為品牌標(biāo)志性的紅色標(biāo)識,。在向媒體發(fā)布的廣告宣傳圖中,,可口可樂還展示了模擬的書頁圖片,似乎將《極端隱喻》的作者標(biāo)注為詹姆斯·格雷厄姆·巴拉德,。
“廣告中臆想的詹姆斯·格雷厄姆·巴拉德敲出的這段文字從未由他本人撰寫,,只是他曾發(fā)表的言論,,而唯一用英文原封不動敲出這段文字的人是我,。”該書編纂者奧哈拉告訴率先披露此事的404Media記者伊曼紐爾·邁伯格(Emanuel Maiberg),。
他補(bǔ)充道:“最令我憤慨的是廣告中出現(xiàn)了‘Shangai’一詞,。巴拉德絕不會拼錯(cuò)自己出生城市的名字,。這則廣告觸發(fā)了我的‘學(xué)術(shù)神經(jīng)官能癥’:是我弄錯(cuò)了嗎?我檢查了《極端隱喻》的樣書,,謝天謝地,,原文印的是正確的‘Shanghai’?!?
“檢索階段”使用人工智能
與可口可樂合作打造該宣傳活動的營銷機(jī)構(gòu)VML向404Media表示,,人工智能被用于“初步文獻(xiàn)檢索,以識別提及品牌的書籍”,,但公司對相關(guān)信息進(jìn)行了人工事實(shí)核查,,并聯(lián)系了多位作者、出版商及版權(quán)繼承人以獲取許可,。
奧哈拉表示,,他擔(dān)心這則廣告會誤導(dǎo)觀眾,讓他們以為自己對巴拉德訪談內(nèi)容的翻譯是作家親筆創(chuàng)作的散文作品,。
奧哈拉告訴404Media :“廣告呈現(xiàn)的文本并非其散文原作,,而是我對巴拉德法語訪談錄音的編譯轉(zhuǎn)寫。我已竭力忠實(shí)傳遞其思想內(nèi)核,,但也僅能做到這點(diǎn),。我的文字遠(yuǎn)不及原作,我覺得任何看過廣告并認(rèn)為這段文字平淡無奇的人,,既符合事實(shí)判斷,,又被誤導(dǎo)認(rèn)為這是巴拉德親筆創(chuàng)作的內(nèi)容?!?
截至發(fā)稿,,可口可樂和VML的代表尚未回應(yīng)《財(cái)富》雜志的置評請求。
可口可樂的人工智能爭議
這并非可口可樂首次因在廣告中使用生成式人工智能引發(fā)爭議,。
去年年底,,該公司發(fā)布了一系列人工智能生成的圣誕廣告,在網(wǎng)上招致批評,。部分藝術(shù)家,、電影制作人和觀眾抨擊這些廣告風(fēng)格怪異、質(zhì)量欠佳,,認(rèn)為其本質(zhì)是通過技術(shù)替代創(chuàng)意勞動力的降本舉措,。
許多藝術(shù)家和創(chuàng)意從業(yè)者一直抗議創(chuàng)意行業(yè)使用人工智能,指出該技術(shù)可能取代創(chuàng)作者,,且人工智能模型在訓(xùn)練時(shí)未經(jīng)許可使用創(chuàng)作者的作品,,既未注明來源,也未給予報(bào)酬。
其中一則旨在致敬可口可樂1995年經(jīng)典廣告“節(jié)日來臨”(Holidays Are Coming)的人工智能廣告,,其畫面中的人物和卡車都是由人工智能生成的,,被社交媒體用戶斥為“毫無靈魂”、“完全缺乏真正的創(chuàng)造力”,。 (財(cái)富中文網(wǎng))
譯者:中慧言-王芳
? A new ad campaign from Coca-Cola appears to mistakenly attribute a non-existent J.G. Ballard work to the author. The section of text used in the ad is actually from a book of various interviews the author gave, published years after his death. This apparent error follows previous backlash over Coca-Cola’s AI-generated Christmas ads.
Coca-Cola’s recent AI-powered advert appears to have got its facts mixed up. In an April campaign called “Classic,” the company aimed to highlight examples where its brand name appears in classic literature. The ad uses Stephen King’s The Shining and V. S. Naipaul’s A House for Mr. Biswas as examples. However, it also includes a book called Extreme Metaphors by J. G. Ballard, which does not exist.
What the advertisement appears to reference is a book called Extreme Metaphors: Selected Interviews with J. G. Ballard 1967-2008, which is a book of interviews with J.G. Ballard that was published in 2012, three years after the author’s death, and edited by Dan O’Hara and Simon Sellars.
The ads show someone typing out passages from novels on a typewriter, but where Coca-Cola is mentioned, the company has replaced the typewriter font with its iconic red logo. In promotion images of the ad shared with media outlets, the company also shared mocked-up images of book pages that seem to show J. G. Ballard as the author of Extreme Metaphors.
“The sequence of words being typed out by the imagined J. G. Ballard in the ad was never written by him, only spoken, and the only person ever to type that exact sequence out in English is me,” O’Hara, the book’s editor, told 404Media‘s Emanuel Maiberg, who first reported the error.
“What most outraged my eye was the word ‘Shangai’ being typed. Ballard would never have misspelled the name of the city in which he was born. Seeing the ad triggered an academic neurosis: Had I? I checked my copy of Extreme Metaphors and, thank god, no: It’s printed as Shanghai in the original text,” he added.
AI used in the ‘research phase’
VML, a marketing agency that worked with Coca-Cola to create the campaign, told 404Media that AI was used “in the initial research phase to identify books with brand mentions,” but the company manually fact-checked and reached out to get permission from the various authors, publishers, and estates.
O’Hara said he was concerned the ad would mislead viewers to believe his translation of Ballard’s words could were actually the author’s real-life prose.
“If you read the text in the ad, you’re not reading his prose: You’re reading mine, translating his recorded words from French,” O’Hara told 404. “I’ve done my best to render his meaning, but that’s all I’ve managed to do. My prose is a pretty poor substitute for the real thing, and I feel anyone seeing the ad and thinking there’s nothing special about the writing is both right, and misled to think it’s Ballard’s own writing.”
Representatives for Coca-Cola and VML didn’t respond to a request for comment from Fortune by press time.
Coca-Cola’s AI backlash
This isn’t the first time Coca-Cola has run into issues when using generative AI in its ads.
Late last year, the company released a series of AI-generated Christmas ads that was met with criticism online. Some artists, filmmakers, and viewers blasted the ads as eerie, low-quality, and a cost-cutting move to replace creative labor.
Many artists and creatives have protested the use of AI in the creative industries, arguing that it risks supplanting human talent and that AI models are trained on creators’ work without offering proper credit or compensation in return.
One of the ads, intended to pay homage to Coca-Cola’s classic 1995 “Holidays Are Coming” campaign, and features AI-generated people and trucks, was slammed by social media users as “soulless” and “devoid of any actual creativity.”