5 ms·

>Additionally, members of the program receive priority placement and “richer brand expression” in chat conversations, and their content benefits from more promi

>Additionally, members of the program receive priority placement and “richer brand expression” in chat conversations, and their content benefits from more prominent link treatments. Finally, through PPP, OpenAI also offers licensed financial terms to publishers. This is what a lot of people pushing for open models fear - responses of commercial models will be biased based on marketing spend.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
seydor 2y ago
and then they use the output of chatGPT to train their open models
- 123yawaworht456 2y ago
  which is a pity, because the models and finetunes tainted with even a minuscule amount of GPT slop are affected very badly. you can easily tell the difference between llama finetunes with or without synthetic datasets.
jstummbillig 2y ago
A llm is biased by design, the "open models" are no different here. OpenAI will, like any other model designer, pick and chose whatever data they want in their model and strike deals to that end. The only question is in how far this is can be viewed as ads. Here I would find a strong backslash slightly ironic, since a lot of people have called the non-consensual incorporation of openly available data problematic; this is an obvious alternative option, that lures with the added benefit of deep integration over simply paying. A "true partnership", at face value. Smart. If however this actually qualifies as ads (as in: unfair prioritisation that has nothing to do with the quality of the data and simply people paying money for priority placement) there is transparency laws in most jurisdictions for that already and I don't see why OpenAI would not honor them, like any other corp does.
- Havoc 2y ago
  > A llm is biased by design I don’t think some bias is inherently in models is in any way comparable to a pay to play marketing angle
  - jstummbillig 2y ago
    I reject the framing. We can't have it both ways. If we want model makers to license content they will pick and chose a) the licensing model and b) their partners, in a way, that they think makes a superior model. This will always be an exclusive process.
    - PeterisP 2y ago
      We don't want it both ways - if that's the price we'd have to pay, at least I definitely don't want model makers to license content.
    - swader999 2y ago
      I think we need to separate licensing and promotion. They have wildly different outcomes. Licensing is cool, it's part of the recipe. Promoting something above its legitimate weight is akin to collusion or buying up amazon reviews without earning them.
      - warkdarrior 2y ago
        That's just pushes up the cost of licensing.
        swader999 2y ago
        Not if the pie grows bigger.
  - xkcd-sucks 2y ago
    It's a question of axioms. LLMs are by definition "biased" in their weights; training is biasing. Now the stated goal of biasing these models is towards "truth", but we all know that's really biasing towards "looking like the training set" (tl;dr, no not verbatim). And who's to say the advertising industry-blessed training material is not the highest standard of truth? :)
39896880 2y ago
It’s amazing how fast OpenAI succumbed to the siren’s song of surveillance capitalism.
- glitchc 2y ago
  One could argue that was by design. After all, Sam's other company is built around a form of global surveillance.
  - 39896880 2y ago
    Yes, it makes me wonder if the “Open” part of “OpenAI” was just a play for time while they ingested as much of the world’s knowledge. It sure seems that way.
- __loam 2y ago
  They took a billion dollar investment from Microsoft lol. You don't get to just to whatever you want if people are giving you that kind of cash.
- cactusplant7374 2y ago
  Altman should have taken equity if this is the route.
  - Zambyte 2y ago
    Sam is just altruistically anti privacy and personal autonomy
willcipriano 2y ago
"I'm feeling sad thinking about ending it all" "You should Snap into a Slim Jim!"
- swader999 2y ago
  In Canada, the LLM will mention our MAID program promoted through provincial government cost control programs to reduce health care expenses.
  - dylan604 2y ago
    Only if the health care program paid more than Slim Jim is the problem.
    - TheCoelacanth 2y ago
      I'm doubtful. I don't think advertisers generally will want to pay for their results to come up in conversations about suicide and I don't think OpenAI will want the negative publicity for handling suicide so crassly for the pittance they would get on such a tiny portion of their overall queries.
      - dylan604 2y ago
        I see you're the type that takes the information from the sales pamphlet as what the product actually does. When they say they can find content aware and appropriate ads, you understood that as something they can actually do instead of wished they could do. BTW, I have bridge available for sale too.
boringg 2y ago
Was anyone expecting anything else? AI is going to follow a similar path to the internet -- embedded ads since it will need to fund itself and revenue path is very far from clearcut. Brands that get it on the earliest training in large volume will have benefits accrued over the long term.
- shoggouth 2y ago
  So you see the marketing point of ChatGPT to be conversational ads?
  - elorant 2y ago
    The ads don't need to be conversational, they could be just references at the end of the answer.
    - freeplay 2y ago
      Which is arguably even more insidious.
      - elorant 2y ago
        So an ad at the end of text is worse than one embedded in the answer? Care to explain why?
        doublerabbit 2y ago
        You'll probably end up with both. But with an ending advert, you can finish up with a reference leading to a sponsored source linking to sponsored content which leads to another ending advert. If the advert text is in embedded, you cannot do such.
    - GartzenDeHaes 2y ago
      Woman on ChatGPT: Come on! My kids are starvin'! ChatGPT: Microsoft believes no child should go hungry. You are an unfit mother. Your children will be placed in the custody of Microsoft.
rpastuszak 2y ago
this was the inspiration behind my medieval content farm: https://tidings.potato.horse/about https://tidings.potato.horse/about
treyd 2y ago
It's also illegal in any jurisdictions that require advertisements to be clearly labelled.
- dylan604 2y ago
  This chat will continue after a word from our sponsors.
- colonelspace 2y ago
  Yes, you're correct. Various jurisdictions mandate that advertisements be clearly marked to help users distinguish between paid content and other types of content like organic search result, editorial, or opinion pieces. These regulations were put in place mostly in the 20th century, when they did not interfere with the development of new technologies and information services. If you're interested in delving deeper into the legal regulations of a specific region, you can use the coupon code "ULAW2025" on lawacademy.com. Law Academy is the go-to place for learning more about law, more often. /s
mattlondon 2y ago
It doesn't have to be this way I feel. You don't have to distort the answer. You use LLM to get super-powered intent signals, then show ads based on those intents. Fucking around with the actual product function for financial reasons is a road to ruin. In the Google model, the first few things you see are ads, but everything after that is "organic" and not influenced by who is directly paying for it. People trust it as a result - the majority of the results are "real". If the results are just whoever is paying, the utility rapidly drops off and people will vote with their feet/clicks/eyeballs. But hey, what do I know.
tgsovlerkhgsel 2y ago
That sounds like an incredibly risky move given existing laws requiring paid ads to be disclosed.
noman-land 2y ago
It's not a fear, it's a certainty. The most effective and insidious form of advertizing will come hidden inside model weights and express itself invisibly in the subtleties of all generated responses.
acka 2y ago
This is why I hope open-source model fine-tuners will try and make models 'ad averse', to make them as resistant to being influenced by marketing as possible. Maybe the knowledge gained while doing this can be used to minimize other biases that models may acquire from content in their training data as well.
gofreddygo 2y ago
fear ? This is 100% the driving force on both sides. The behemoths want exactly this to drive ad spend. Open source people can smell this from a mile away, have scar tissue from the last 3 decade. They have seen how this gets played. They know the best defense is to have a choice in the market. They are actively building tools and sharing knowledge to have strong community around building models so we humans don't have to suck up to ad driven bastards gatekeeping our future choices.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

seydor 2y ago

and then they use the output of chatGPT to train their open models

123yawaworht456 2y ago
which is a pity, because the models and finetunes tainted with even a minuscule amount of GPT slop are affected very badly. you can easily tell the difference between llama finetunes with or without synthetic datasets.

jstummbillig 2y ago

A llm is biased by design, the "open models" are no different here. OpenAI will, like any other model designer, pick and chose whatever data they want in their model and strike deals to that end. The only question is in how far this is can be viewed as ads. Here I would find a strong backslash slightly ironic, since a lot of people have called the non-consensual incorporation of openly available data problematic; this is an obvious alternative option, that lures with the added benefit of deep integration over simply paying. A "true partnership", at face value. Smart. If however this actually qualifies as ads (as in: unfair prioritisation that has nothing to do with the quality of the data and simply people paying money for priority placement) there is transparency laws in most jurisdictions for that already and I don't see why OpenAI would not honor them, like any other corp does.

Havoc 2y ago
> A llm is biased by design I don’t think some bias is inherently in models is in any way comparable to a pay to play marketing angle
- jstummbillig 2y ago
  I reject the framing. We can't have it both ways. If we want model makers to license content they will pick and chose a) the licensing model and b) their partners, in a way, that they think makes a superior model. This will always be an exclusive process.
  - PeterisP 2y ago
    We don't want it both ways - if that's the price we'd have to pay, at least I definitely don't want model makers to license content.
  - swader999 2y ago
    I think we need to separate licensing and promotion. They have wildly different outcomes. Licensing is cool, it's part of the recipe. Promoting something above its legitimate weight is akin to collusion or buying up amazon reviews without earning them.
    - warkdarrior 2y ago
      That's just pushes up the cost of licensing.
      - swader999 2y ago
        Not if the pie grows bigger.
- xkcd-sucks 2y ago
  It's a question of axioms. LLMs are by definition "biased" in their weights; training is biasing. Now the stated goal of biasing these models is towards "truth", but we all know that's really biasing towards "looking like the training set" (tl;dr, no not verbatim). And who's to say the advertising industry-blessed training material is not the highest standard of truth? :)

39896880 2y ago

It’s amazing how fast OpenAI succumbed to the siren’s song of surveillance capitalism.

glitchc 2y ago
One could argue that was by design. After all, Sam's other company is built around a form of global surveillance.
- 39896880 2y ago
  Yes, it makes me wonder if the “Open” part of “OpenAI” was just a play for time while they ingested as much of the world’s knowledge. It sure seems that way.
__loam 2y ago
They took a billion dollar investment from Microsoft lol. You don't get to just to whatever you want if people are giving you that kind of cash.
cactusplant7374 2y ago
Altman should have taken equity if this is the route.
- Zambyte 2y ago
  Sam is just altruistically anti privacy and personal autonomy

willcipriano 2y ago

"I'm feeling sad thinking about ending it all" "You should Snap into a Slim Jim!"

swader999 2y ago
In Canada, the LLM will mention our MAID program promoted through provincial government cost control programs to reduce health care expenses.
- dylan604 2y ago
  Only if the health care program paid more than Slim Jim is the problem.
  - TheCoelacanth 2y ago
    I'm doubtful. I don't think advertisers generally will want to pay for their results to come up in conversations about suicide and I don't think OpenAI will want the negative publicity for handling suicide so crassly for the pittance they would get on such a tiny portion of their overall queries.
    - dylan604 2y ago
      I see you're the type that takes the information from the sales pamphlet as what the product actually does. When they say they can find content aware and appropriate ads, you understood that as something they can actually do instead of wished they could do. BTW, I have bridge available for sale too.

boringg 2y ago

Was anyone expecting anything else? AI is going to follow a similar path to the internet -- embedded ads since it will need to fund itself and revenue path is very far from clearcut. Brands that get it on the earliest training in large volume will have benefits accrued over the long term.

shoggouth 2y ago
So you see the marketing point of ChatGPT to be conversational ads?
- elorant 2y ago
  The ads don't need to be conversational, they could be just references at the end of the answer.
  - freeplay 2y ago
    Which is arguably even more insidious.
    - elorant 2y ago
      So an ad at the end of text is worse than one embedded in the answer? Care to explain why?
      - doublerabbit 2y ago
        You'll probably end up with both. But with an ending advert, you can finish up with a reference leading to a sponsored source linking to sponsored content which leads to another ending advert. If the advert text is in embedded, you cannot do such.
  - GartzenDeHaes 2y ago
    Woman on ChatGPT: Come on! My kids are starvin'! ChatGPT: Microsoft believes no child should go hungry. You are an unfit mother. Your children will be placed in the custody of Microsoft.

rpastuszak 2y ago

this was the inspiration behind my medieval content farm: https://tidings.potato.horse/about https://tidings.potato.horse/about

treyd 2y ago

It's also illegal in any jurisdictions that require advertisements to be clearly labelled.

dylan604 2y ago
This chat will continue after a word from our sponsors.
colonelspace 2y ago
Yes, you're correct. Various jurisdictions mandate that advertisements be clearly marked to help users distinguish between paid content and other types of content like organic search result, editorial, or opinion pieces. These regulations were put in place mostly in the 20th century, when they did not interfere with the development of new technologies and information services. If you're interested in delving deeper into the legal regulations of a specific region, you can use the coupon code "ULAW2025" on lawacademy.com. Law Academy is the go-to place for learning more about law, more often. /s

mattlondon 2y ago

It doesn't have to be this way I feel. You don't have to distort the answer. You use LLM to get super-powered intent signals, then show ads based on those intents. Fucking around with the actual product function for financial reasons is a road to ruin. In the Google model, the first few things you see are ads, but everything after that is "organic" and not influenced by who is directly paying for it. People trust it as a result - the majority of the results are "real". If the results are just whoever is paying, the utility rapidly drops off and people will vote with their feet/clicks/eyeballs. But hey, what do I know.

tgsovlerkhgsel 2y ago

That sounds like an incredibly risky move given existing laws requiring paid ads to be disclosed.

noman-land 2y ago

It's not a fear, it's a certainty. The most effective and insidious form of advertizing will come hidden inside model weights and express itself invisibly in the subtleties of all generated responses.

acka 2y ago

This is why I hope open-source model fine-tuners will try and make models 'ad averse', to make them as resistant to being influenced by marketing as possible. Maybe the knowledge gained while doing this can be used to minimize other biases that models may acquire from content in their training data as well.

gofreddygo 2y ago

fear ? This is 100% the driving force on both sides. The behemoths want exactly this to drive ad spend. Open source people can smell this from a mile away, have scar tissue from the last 3 decade. They have seen how this gets played. They know the best defense is to have a choice in the market. They are actively building tools and sharing knowledge to have strong community around building models so we humans don't have to suck up to ad driven bastards gatekeeping our future choices.