7 ms·

If a majority of users switch to ad-powered free tiers, a majority of users will see well-written, targeted advice that is ads (lies!) in disguise. This is a h

by maho 2mo ago

If a majority of users switch to ad-powered free tiers, a majority of users will see well-written, targeted advice that is ads (lies!) in disguise. This is a horrible future to consider. The more I think about it, the more I come to the conclusion that a society that bans ads is a healthier, more robust society, and I am not alone. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43595269 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43595269

Gareth321 2mo ago
I am also worried about this. Typical ads are already devastatingly effective against most people, causing incalculable distortions in market dynamics and incalculable losses to consumers. This is an order of magnitude worse. But there is something even more insidious: elections. Ads will be purchased to shape public perceptions. Those with the deepest pockets will have ads which are charismatic, convincing, and unbelievably effective. This is the death of democracy if regulation isn't adopted right now. Unfortunately this isn't straightforward. The distinction between a product, service, person, and party are impossible to clearly delineate. Is a SpaceX ad an endorsement of Elon Musk? Is an Elon Musk ad an endorsement of the U.S. Republicans? The famous Citizens United ruling determined that there is no practical legal distinction in this domain, meaning that without a Constitutional amendment (which will never happen in this political climate), the U.S. is going to barrel headlong into some kind of dystopia. My only ray of sunshine here is competition. If OpenAI gets a reputation for untrustworthy AI, and there are viable competitors, people will hopefully switch. It's messy and imperfect and will require constant vigilance (because they're not going to tell us when they're misleading us). I think open weights models have become very good, and will improve much more over time. When we can reasonably run these models locally, ubiquitously, we have cost effective options.
olalonde 2mo ago
Unpopular opinion: I think users should be free to choose.
- placebo 2mo ago
  If you are implying that this is the case because this is also how leaders are selected in a democracy, then of course the sarcasm is noted - but here's my real unpopular opinion: Democracy only has value when the majority of voters are not morons. Unfortunately, I can't come up with a better solution - maybe create a model for which there is a wide agreement on and let it rule?
  - TeMPOraL 2mo ago
    Here's my real unpopular opinion: the actual value of democracy is bloodless transition of power. Everything else is window dressing.
    - pigpop 2mo ago
      That's not a unique attribute of democracy nor is it guaranteed. Any system of government that hasn't succumbed to corruption and factionalism will have clear rules of succession. Even an absolute monarchy can go on for many generations without bloodshed.
      - lotsofpulp 2mo ago
        Succession in monarchies is not a transition of power comparable to a democratic vote changing leaders every few years.
      - TeMPOraL 2mo ago
        The point is that frequent transitions seem to incentivise rhetorical instead of literal backstabbing.
  - olalonde 2mo ago
    I simply meant that users ought to be free to choose between a product that offers a free ad-supported tier and one that is paid and ad-free. And I do believe that letting morons choose for themselves is the lesser evil.
  - oneeyedpigeon 2mo ago
- Nurw 2mo ago
  Ah, so you are against ads! At least the way ads are today. With that I mean that the way ads today mostly focus on manipulating over informing is effectively hindering your ability to choose.
  - disgruntledphd2 2mo ago
    > Ah, so you are against ads! At least the way ads are today. With that I mean that the way ads today mostly focus on manipulating over informing is effectively hindering your ability to choose. Speaking as someone who worked in advertising for a looooonnnngggg time, there are three ways that ads seem to work (above a randomised holdout). 1. The ad is something that the person actually wants, and they then convert. 2. The ad is something that the person was about to buy, and they convert. 3. The ad is part of a long running campaign that shifts (some) consumer's behaviour over time (ads for Coke etc fall in this category). Ads aren't magic, and most people ignore them most of the time. It turns out that enough people don't that they can be profitable sometimes, but mostly that's just targeting people with more money than sense. This HN notion that ads shape everyone's behaviour (except me, obviously) is so disconnected from my experience that I am sometimes confused by it.
    - hlynurd 2mo ago
      A single polluting factory won't ruin the lungs of a single person, but thousands of factories will have an unhealthy effect on a population.
    - guelo 2mo ago
      Which category is it when the user asks which is the best brand for the thing they want to buy and the platform lies to them and recommends the brand that paid the most money?
      - fwn 2mo ago
        Concealed advertising is highly problematic and deserves discussion. It is not, however, what OpenAI introduced in the article above. Their current ad formats are, apparently, transparently labeled and clearly separated. It is very likely that this will adjust in the future. Just look at how indistinguishable from organic content some prominent ad placements have become over time. But: There is merit in discussing the actual product, not some hypothetical version of it. If we do discuss hypotheticals, we should make that explicit. This also helps the whole debate (and therefore, I believe, ad critics): arguments grounded in reality are usually far more effective than those that aren't. ... And there might come a point where OpenAI introduces some kind of native ad format. We would be well advised to preserve our credibility for that discussion. edit: Paid content in the organic LLM output is a current problem already. It ist just not what this announcement is about.
- lII1lIlI11ll 2mo ago
  > Unpopular opinion: I think users should be free to choose. There is nothing unpopular about your opinion - silent majority definitely wants ad-subsidized free tiers (that is why they are so popular and ads are not banned anywhere in the western world), it is just that arguing with radicals on HN or reddit is exhausting and a waste of time in general.
deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]
layer8 2mo ago
> ads in disguise These are illegal in most jurisdictions. We need to apply the existing laws.
- wiether 2mo ago
  We'll have to wait a few years before they receive their first fine Meanwhile they'll have time to grab billions
  - ClikeX 2mo ago
    As long as the fine is cheaper than the earnings, they'll keep on doing it. And fines are retroactive, at that point they've already broadcasted to and influenced a bunch of people.
- andersonpico 2mo ago
  You can't fight this battle in the current judicial system. If before anyone can successfully bring a lawsuit in front of a judge the company has unlimited money, then at least one of these three things will be true: a. the damages won't make a dent b. they can throw lawyers at the problem for the win c. they will have grafted their way into the economy so deeply that no one will want to kill their main source of income This battle is already lost, if they find economical success then they are untouchable.
  - xnx 2mo ago
    No large companies are breaking this law directly. There a rampant violations by "influencers".
- gonzalohm 2mo ago
  What about influencers promoting products? I don't think there are any flags indicating that it's an ad
  - LtdJorge 2mo ago
    In Spain (and I believe the EU), it’s required to indicate it.
slfnflctd 2mo ago
Look into the Adbusters organization. I'm not sure I agree with them on everything, but they have created some excellent satire over the years and been involved in prominent protests.
Mistletoe 2mo ago
"Once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them." -Dune I wish we would stop speedrunning this Dune/Blade Runner future we keep trying to attain.
- psd1 2mo ago
  > this Dune/Blade Runner future we keep trying to attain That's grossly inaccurate. We are speedrunning a William Gibson future.
otabdeveloper4 2mo ago
The cost of LLM inference is orders of magnitude more than the typical ad CPM. Not even "native ads" embedded in LLM output can offset the difference.
- skeeter2020 2mo ago
  ChatGPT is way above typical CPM, maybe $60-$100. That puts it in the same category as premium YT verticals. If they can sell enough at this price point it would make a big impact, but I'm super-doubtful they can do that; campaigns are basically blind at this stage, and I would not be surprised if this was intentional.
kelvinjps10 2mo ago
But it what's the solution to free services? There is many people that can't afford to have to pay for search, emails, maps. On top of paying for accessing content, micro transactions. For Internet related companies what if the country the person is from, doesn't have access to the financial system of the country that company is operating from. I think It might be better to regulate them than remove them. Or to find a solution for people that can't access it. (Another is higher tiers, free for personal users etc) I hate ads but I also think about what's the alternative
- nugator 2mo ago
  If it's like the commercials in the movie the Truman show I think this could be a nightmare. I think it all boils down to how (if?) this will be transparent to the user. If the response suggests a sponsored product/service to the user it could either be the specific product/service that ChatGPT is biased to suggest or the whole idea of using a product/service. As a user I would like to know both of these biases to understand that using any product/service for my need might not even be the best thing.
naikrovek 2mo ago
> The more I think about it, the more I come to the conclusion that a society that bans ads is a healthier, more robust society 100% agree. It's the only way things don't go south.
fny 2mo ago
From the article, it looks like ads are separate from answers in a clearly delineated way. It's not quite as nefarious as what you're suggesting. Frankly, I'm surprised. This is only round one however, and I could see a future where they offer more "intimate" experiences. At least that's not today.

by maho 2mo ago

Gareth321 2mo ago

I am also worried about this. Typical ads are already devastatingly effective against most people, causing incalculable distortions in market dynamics and incalculable losses to consumers. This is an order of magnitude worse. But there is something even more insidious: elections. Ads will be purchased to shape public perceptions. Those with the deepest pockets will have ads which are charismatic, convincing, and unbelievably effective. This is the death of democracy if regulation isn't adopted right now. Unfortunately this isn't straightforward. The distinction between a product, service, person, and party are impossible to clearly delineate. Is a SpaceX ad an endorsement of Elon Musk? Is an Elon Musk ad an endorsement of the U.S. Republicans? The famous Citizens United ruling determined that there is no practical legal distinction in this domain, meaning that without a Constitutional amendment (which will never happen in this political climate), the U.S. is going to barrel headlong into some kind of dystopia. My only ray of sunshine here is competition. If OpenAI gets a reputation for untrustworthy AI, and there are viable competitors, people will hopefully switch. It's messy and imperfect and will require constant vigilance (because they're not going to tell us when they're misleading us). I think open weights models have become very good, and will improve much more over time. When we can reasonably run these models locally, ubiquitously, we have cost effective options.

olalonde 2mo ago

Unpopular opinion: I think users should be free to choose.

placebo 2mo ago
If you are implying that this is the case because this is also how leaders are selected in a democracy, then of course the sarcasm is noted - but here's my real unpopular opinion: Democracy only has value when the majority of voters are not morons. Unfortunately, I can't come up with a better solution - maybe create a model for which there is a wide agreement on and let it rule?
- TeMPOraL 2mo ago
  Here's my real unpopular opinion: the actual value of democracy is bloodless transition of power. Everything else is window dressing.
  - pigpop 2mo ago
    That's not a unique attribute of democracy nor is it guaranteed. Any system of government that hasn't succumbed to corruption and factionalism will have clear rules of succession. Even an absolute monarchy can go on for many generations without bloodshed.
    - lotsofpulp 2mo ago
      Succession in monarchies is not a transition of power comparable to a democratic vote changing leaders every few years.
    - TeMPOraL 2mo ago
      The point is that frequent transitions seem to incentivise rhetorical instead of literal backstabbing.
- olalonde 2mo ago
  I simply meant that users ought to be free to choose between a product that offers a free ad-supported tier and one that is paid and ad-free. And I do believe that letting morons choose for themselves is the lesser evil.
- oneeyedpigeon 2mo ago
Nurw 2mo ago
Ah, so you are against ads! At least the way ads are today. With that I mean that the way ads today mostly focus on manipulating over informing is effectively hindering your ability to choose.
- disgruntledphd2 2mo ago
  > Ah, so you are against ads! At least the way ads are today. With that I mean that the way ads today mostly focus on manipulating over informing is effectively hindering your ability to choose. Speaking as someone who worked in advertising for a looooonnnngggg time, there are three ways that ads seem to work (above a randomised holdout). 1. The ad is something that the person actually wants, and they then convert. 2. The ad is something that the person was about to buy, and they convert. 3. The ad is part of a long running campaign that shifts (some) consumer's behaviour over time (ads for Coke etc fall in this category). Ads aren't magic, and most people ignore them most of the time. It turns out that enough people don't that they can be profitable sometimes, but mostly that's just targeting people with more money than sense. This HN notion that ads shape everyone's behaviour (except me, obviously) is so disconnected from my experience that I am sometimes confused by it.
  - hlynurd 2mo ago
    A single polluting factory won't ruin the lungs of a single person, but thousands of factories will have an unhealthy effect on a population.
  - guelo 2mo ago
    Which category is it when the user asks which is the best brand for the thing they want to buy and the platform lies to them and recommends the brand that paid the most money?
    - fwn 2mo ago
      Concealed advertising is highly problematic and deserves discussion. It is not, however, what OpenAI introduced in the article above. Their current ad formats are, apparently, transparently labeled and clearly separated. It is very likely that this will adjust in the future. Just look at how indistinguishable from organic content some prominent ad placements have become over time. But: There is merit in discussing the actual product, not some hypothetical version of it. If we do discuss hypotheticals, we should make that explicit. This also helps the whole debate (and therefore, I believe, ad critics): arguments grounded in reality are usually far more effective than those that aren't. ... And there might come a point where OpenAI introduces some kind of native ad format. We would be well advised to preserve our credibility for that discussion. edit: Paid content in the organic LLM output is a current problem already. It ist just not what this announcement is about.
lII1lIlI11ll 2mo ago
> Unpopular opinion: I think users should be free to choose. There is nothing unpopular about your opinion - silent majority definitely wants ad-subsidized free tiers (that is why they are so popular and ads are not banned anywhere in the western world), it is just that arguing with radicals on HN or reddit is exhausting and a waste of time in general.

deleted 2mo ago

[deleted]

layer8 2mo ago

> ads in disguise These are illegal in most jurisdictions. We need to apply the existing laws.

wiether 2mo ago
We'll have to wait a few years before they receive their first fine Meanwhile they'll have time to grab billions
- ClikeX 2mo ago
  As long as the fine is cheaper than the earnings, they'll keep on doing it. And fines are retroactive, at that point they've already broadcasted to and influenced a bunch of people.
andersonpico 2mo ago
You can't fight this battle in the current judicial system. If before anyone can successfully bring a lawsuit in front of a judge the company has unlimited money, then at least one of these three things will be true: a. the damages won't make a dent b. they can throw lawyers at the problem for the win c. they will have grafted their way into the economy so deeply that no one will want to kill their main source of income This battle is already lost, if they find economical success then they are untouchable.
- xnx 2mo ago
  No large companies are breaking this law directly. There a rampant violations by "influencers".
gonzalohm 2mo ago
What about influencers promoting products? I don't think there are any flags indicating that it's an ad
- LtdJorge 2mo ago
  In Spain (and I believe the EU), it’s required to indicate it.

slfnflctd 2mo ago

Look into the Adbusters organization. I'm not sure I agree with them on everything, but they have created some excellent satire over the years and been involved in prominent protests.

Mistletoe 2mo ago

"Once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them." -Dune I wish we would stop speedrunning this Dune/Blade Runner future we keep trying to attain.

psd1 2mo ago
> this Dune/Blade Runner future we keep trying to attain That's grossly inaccurate. We are speedrunning a William Gibson future.

otabdeveloper4 2mo ago

The cost of LLM inference is orders of magnitude more than the typical ad CPM. Not even "native ads" embedded in LLM output can offset the difference.

skeeter2020 2mo ago
ChatGPT is way above typical CPM, maybe $60-$100. That puts it in the same category as premium YT verticals. If they can sell enough at this price point it would make a big impact, but I'm super-doubtful they can do that; campaigns are basically blind at this stage, and I would not be surprised if this was intentional.

kelvinjps10 2mo ago

But it what's the solution to free services? There is many people that can't afford to have to pay for search, emails, maps. On top of paying for accessing content, micro transactions. For Internet related companies what if the country the person is from, doesn't have access to the financial system of the country that company is operating from. I think It might be better to regulate them than remove them. Or to find a solution for people that can't access it. (Another is higher tiers, free for personal users etc) I hate ads but I also think about what's the alternative

nugator 2mo ago
If it's like the commercials in the movie the Truman show I think this could be a nightmare. I think it all boils down to how (if?) this will be transparent to the user. If the response suggests a sponsored product/service to the user it could either be the specific product/service that ChatGPT is biased to suggest or the whole idea of using a product/service. As a user I would like to know both of these biases to understand that using any product/service for my need might not even be the best thing.

naikrovek 2mo ago

> The more I think about it, the more I come to the conclusion that a society that bans ads is a healthier, more robust society 100% agree. It's the only way things don't go south.

fny 2mo ago

From the article, it looks like ads are separate from answers in a clearly delineated way. It's not quite as nefarious as what you're suggesting. Frankly, I'm surprised. This is only round one however, and I could see a future where they offer more "intimate" experiences. At least that's not today.