The writing has unfortunately been on the wall for this, especially for free users. They want you to make choices that are in their economic interests.
The biggest tell for me lately is that if you ask ChatGPT about products or even specific items on Amazon, it will only return links to companies that partner with OpenAI. None of the companies they currently partner (affiliate link basically) with are ones I prefer to buy from. It has made ChatGPT way less useful for this kind of research now. I certainly have reasons to distrust all their shopping links.
>Mission alignment: Our mission is to ensure AGI benefits all of humanity; our pursuit of advertising is always in support of that mission and making AI more accessible.
Advertising and marketing kills humanity, these should be among the first industries that AI eliminates; kinda getting mixed messages here. You'd think the tech that supposedly is going to make money and all work irrelevant could figure out a way to make money without resorting to being yet another mechanism to deliver ads.
I invite you to ponder the question: would a worldwide ban of all advertising have a greater or smaller impact on environment-destroying activity than banning of all air travel?
I would argue for "greater", and from that it rather naturally follows that advertisement and marketing indeed kills humanity.
People buy things because it provides them value. Increasing buying means that more value is being delivered to humanity. Advertising makes the world a better place.
I dislike this framing. Criticizing an argument is not defending, and it certainly doesn't mean the critic likes the opposing side of the argument. Seems like you're the one with the bias, having created your account just today for this one specific post.
Modern marketing is largely extraordinarily efficient in fact, the opposite of absurd. It does a marvelous job of letting people know that things exist to be purchased. It's a compliment to free will. Buy, don't buy, the choice is yours.
What someone thinks of marketing & advertising will almost always tell you what they think of the intelligence of the typical person. Once you realize that, you realize it's merely a bias that someone is arguing from, that they think most everybody else is a moron and should be deprived of their individual liberty (for their own safety).
It makes the system very inefficient, don't twist my words, you're talking about something else. And this is not about intelligence, I'm not saying people make stupid choices. This is a question of perverse marketing incentives.
You haven't really said why it's inefficient, just saying it doesn't make it so. I can see the point of why it's efficient, that it shows people what is possible to buy in the market that they otherwise would not have known of, but I don't see it from your side.
To be clear, I'm not saying that advertising under whatever slop chatgpt outputs is killing humanity, I'm more thinking of the industry as a whole. They use lies and deception to influence behavior and push products; even if they're fully aware that the claims they're making are blatant lies and the products are harmful. If that industry disappeared humanity would be better off for it.
and to be fair the industry doesn't need to be banned, just heavily regulated, fully transparent, and there should be exponential consequences for their lies (such as, claiming cigarettes are healthy while knowing they're addictive and cause cancer; anyone involved in decisions like that should be in Angola growing tobacco for 13 cents an hour.)
Google is one the most important institution of the Internet era. Talk all you'd like about "OoOoH tHeY aDvErTiSe" or "tHeiR aLgOrItHm Is GeTtInG wOrSe" but at the end of the day, Google still brought knowledge to more people than anything before (apart from maybe Gutenberg).
No its not designed to be that way. I literally can't get ChatGPT to agree with me on 5.2 with many things. Its just not possible.. I'd request you to give me an example of it being sycophantic and encouraging delusional behaviour (as a shareable link).
The reality is that psychologically manipulating people into buying things by forcing yourself as a middleman into every business transaction and industry on the planet is not just morally despicable, but opportunistic, exploitative, and many other negative descriptors I can't quite put into words.
But this isn't even the truly insidious and harmful part. That is reserved for the fact that the same systems used to get people to consume, are also used to manipulate them into thinking and acting in ways that someone, somewhere, could potentially benefit from. So anyone with a negligible amount of resources and effort has the ability to influence individuals, groups of people, societies, and entire countries, to buy into their agenda by pushing their propaganda. After all, modern advertising uses the same propaganda tactics pioneered by the likes of E. Bernays a century ago.
It should be clear to any sane adult that this psychological manipulation is directly responsible for the corruption of democratic processes and sociopolitical instability we've seen around the world for the past decade+.
And then, if all this wasn't enough, these advertising leeches are doing this by violating digital rights, abusing our privacy, corrupting every entertainment experience, and utilizing every nasty trick they can legally get away with to steal our data, and get rich from it via dark data broker markets in perpetuity.
So, please, spare me the bullshit excuse that this is "just" advertising, and that it's a public good that helps poor small businesses reach customers. Catalogs and contextual advertising have existed for decades, but that wasn't enough for these greedy bastards. Humanity is objectively far worse off because of this, and the adtech industry has played a huge role in making it happen. Everyone who has worked on this tech should be ashamed of themselves, even though I'm sure they don't think twice about it, and enjoy the sight of their bank account statements.
Not really. Advertising results in extreme market inefficiencies through the game theory playing out (if you don't advertise as a company, you lose out to companies that do). It's the massive sink of the modern economy, there's nearly no sector unaffected by it. If advertising was banned (not that it's very easy) vast majority of issues associated with capitalism wouldn't even exist and everybody would be wealthier.
This is all putting aside the fact that %99.9 of all advertising works by exploiting the familiarity circuit in the human brain. The effects of advertising are, by definition, not voluntary. See Ads just work, no matter what you think: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18399633
If the purpose of %99.9 of advertising was not exploiting the familiarity circuit and was instead to make you aware of a product you didn't know about before, there wouldn't be a single ad of Coca-Cola, since everybody on the planet knows about it already.
Also, my mom literally buys whatever she sees playing on YouTube ads that week. I know because I see those ads too. You'd be surprised how many people are going through life with undiagnosed or untreated ADHD and how many further lack cognitive agency.
Almost all products we use today were marketed to us in one way or another using advertisements. Without ads, we would expect a very slow diffusion of information and wait tediously for word of mouth to spread and get access to good products.
Web search is and always was perfectly suited to find the product you need, as are the multitude of e-commerce websites active in any country.
Searching does not require advertising or word of mouth. Word of mouth is not inefficient either in a world with internet, the person telling you about a product likely saw it and purchased it online already.
Yeah, and then maybe certain companies could optimize their sites to show up higher on the list of pages, and then maybe some companies can pay other companies for such expertise, and then maybe other companies can pay the search engine directly to show up higher, what an idea right?
It does feel like ensh*ttification. I can't imagine how many school essays and law filings and papers these ads are going to end up embedded in.
But the most charitable view is that even AGI needs cost recovery. Ads are the way you do this for people who aren't willing or able to pay with money.
For better or worse, OpenAI exists in the context of a capitalist system. It has to be competitive in that arena to attract and retain investment, staff, etc. Revenue always ends up being part of the "mission".
Advertisement serves an important purpose. If you were a farmer with a mule and the tractor salesman came by for the first time, that would be life-changing for you. You wouldn't say that salesman was evil for advertising his tractor.
Fair enough, there is some utility to it. But we're quite along way from traveling salesmen advertising tractors. Maybe it doesn't need to be eliminated, just heavily regulated.
What if the salesman said knowingly lied about his tractors? or poisoned the farmer's mules to influence him towards buying one? That'd be on the scale of evil, right?
The poster above me suggested advertising is inherently evil and should be abolished, I was just countering that absolutist position.
I don't disagree that there are absolutely some awful ads out there, and that they should be regulated heavily. I've been getting so many ads for semaglutide on tiktok lately that seem designed to prey on people with eating disorders. Whoever is behind those is evil.
Did you really expect a corporation to be transparent and consistent with their messaging? It should be obvious by now that the word "open" in their name is pure marketing.
I'm surprised it took them this long to jump on the advertising money train. I wouldn't be surprised if they were already monetizing this in the background, and only decided to make it public now.
When ads were introduced into Google, it objectively made the search product worse. You no longer saw what they thought would be the most relevant result. You literally saw Google's most profitable (it is an auction) result.
If we apply that kind of thinking to chat LLMs, it means instead of getting the most relevant tokens, you'll be shown the most profitable tokens. Maybe the most relevant tokens will be below the fold (like unpaid search results) now.
Just wait for the image generators that have paid product placement like TV and movies do now. You ask for an edit of a photo and it changes an ad in the background to a different company. This idea seems awful, and also so obvious that it is going to happen.
Remember the internet before algorithmic ads and cross site tracking?
We will remember this moment of LLM usage for the years to come as we are irreparably spun by advertisers in our most intimate and private 1:1 conversations with these AIs
Curious how the economics are going to go. ChatGPT has close to a billion MAU and they're losing money even with subscriptions. Meanwhile Google with Gemini is catching up (although I've seen reports that Gemini is also testing ads in their chats, especially without disclosing it's an ad, by linking to Google Shopping [0]). The Google example might show how it might appear:
> Since you are context-switching between multiple projects, you cannot afford to work from a kitchen table with poor ergonomics. These tools make 2-week "sprints" viable:
> Reliable Productivity A portable second monitor is essential for keeping your Slack/Jira open on one side while you code on the other.
> The ASUS ZenScreen is the gold standard for nomads. It's ultra-thin and connects via a single USB-C, meaning you can set up a "pro office" in any Airbnb in under 60 seconds.
> Redundant Connectivity Don't trust Airbnb Wi-Fi for your "Impact Doc" delivery or lead syncs.
> The Netgear Nighthawk M6 provides a dedicated 5G connection. It’s your insurance policy against a bad router in a New Orleans rental house.
> Audio Privacy In urban areas like Chicago or New Orleans, street noise is a constant risk during meetings.
> The Sony WH-1000XM5 headphones have the best background noise cancellation for your microphone. Your manager will hear your voice clearly, even if there's a siren outside your window.
Incidentally, I just saw on Show HN an AI SEO tool [1], wonder if OpenAI will also include similar features in their ad platform. Maybe we'll just type in our questions and it'll spit out stats and graphs itself, now that is more likely.
Ironic to show ads only to your users with the least spending power. Me thinks this will not last. Once the ads get “good enough” they will be everywhere.
they have been doomed for a while, it is just a matter of time, but honestly i like them better than the claude provider, if they can make openai profitable, that would be good for all of us, we don't want a world where gemini is the only winner or the chinese take over
Is there any hope that they wont let any of the ads logic into the rl / pre-training? I'd like for my paid ChatGPT model to offer an unbiased source of truth on what the best products are.
I’ve been paying for Google Workspace for my custom domain for years basically just so I can use Gmail. For just $7 more dollars a month, I upgraded my plan to access Gemini Pro, which has guaranteed enterprise-grade privacy controls. I think this is currently the best value platform for anyone who values their privacy for LLMs. If Apple and the DoD trust Google’s internal controls, I do too.
"In the coming weeks, we’re also planning to start testing ads in the U.S. for the free and Go tiers, so more people can benefit from our tools with fewer usage limits or without having to pay."
Yeah, the predictions of doom are so wildly misplaced. There's even a sibling comment on this thread saying, "When Google introduced ads [note: in 2000], it made the product objectively worse." Sure, and did Google die as a result? Or did it subsequently go from a startup with modest revenue in a company with a multi-trillion dollar market cap and $100 billion in quarterly revenue?
| Long-term value: We do not optimize for time spent in ChatGPT. We prioritize user trust and user experience over revenue.
The unspoken part -- This holds true so long as revenue is at least equal to costs, and speaks nothing about whether user trust and user experience is optimized over profit.
Yeah, both directly and indirectly. Over time, "sponsored links" became more and more visually indistinguishable form organic results, and advertising incentives drove changes to the search algorithm.
Oh, this is so benign and appropriate. This will never escalate, and OpenAI is governed by strict privacy laws and audited by the public so we can trust they won't ever change their policy or have bias injected into their models.
Today's userbase is already thoroughly inured to enshittified tech, so why waste time carefully inching your way to the bottom of the shitpit rather than diving straight down? There's money to be made, baby.
Interesting, looking at it from that side. How does it work with traditional real world ads, billboards for example. I'd expect them to have a similar challenge. Not whether the ad was put in front of people, but the high level impact of the whole campaign.
How would advertisers know whether OpenAI even applied the ad to the paid for number of people's conversations, I don't know.
The writing has unfortunately been on the wall for this, especially for free users. They want you to make choices that are in their economic interests.
The biggest tell for me lately is that if you ask ChatGPT about products or even specific items on Amazon, it will only return links to companies that partner with OpenAI. None of the companies they currently partner (affiliate link basically) with are ones I prefer to buy from. It has made ChatGPT way less useful for this kind of research now. I certainly have reasons to distrust all their shopping links.
To be fair, Amazon seems to be blocking ChatGPT. They're also in legal disputes with other AI companies that help their users to browse Amazon's website (https://www.perplexity.ai/fr/hub/blog/bullying-is-not-innova...).
I'm getting links from amazon for shopping here.
>Mission alignment: Our mission is to ensure AGI benefits all of humanity; our pursuit of advertising is always in support of that mission and making AI more accessible.
Advertising and marketing kills humanity, these should be among the first industries that AI eliminates; kinda getting mixed messages here. You'd think the tech that supposedly is going to make money and all work irrelevant could figure out a way to make money without resorting to being yet another mechanism to deliver ads.
> Advertising and marketing kills humanity
No it doesn't. Please stope the hyperbole. Its literally just advertisements and people have the agency to choose to buy products.
I invite you to ponder the question: would a worldwide ban of all advertising have a greater or smaller impact on environment-destroying activity than banning of all air travel?
I would argue for "greater", and from that it rather naturally follows that advertisement and marketing indeed kills humanity.
Can we un-confound those factors? Advertising sells us cheap plane trips, and it looks like leisure is reason for the majority of flights.
Sure but its just people buying things.. so what?
Billions of people buying things has unintended negative consequences. Advertising exists to amplify desire to increase buying.
It doesn't take a high intelligence to perceive the problem.
People buy things because it provides them value. Increasing buying means that more value is being delivered to humanity. Advertising makes the world a better place.
you really don't see the problem with what you say? are you trolling?
The problem that I didn't compare the improvement to humanity to the damage to the environment?
the first sentence "People buy things because it provides them value." is very false. that's central to many of the problems with marketing.
How is it "false?" Why would people buy anything otherwise?
You can't argue with a philosophy of death.
Humans must dramatically modify their environment to thrive.
What they want: human modification of the environment to entirely stop.
Human regression is actually what they're after.
Why do your recent comments defend OpenAI so strongly?
I dislike this framing. Criticizing an argument is not defending, and it certainly doesn't mean the critic likes the opposing side of the argument. Seems like you're the one with the bias, having created your account just today for this one specific post.
OK.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46640744, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46641035, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46644216, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46645814
lol idk what you want to imply but ok
The way you phrased this makes it sound like he's a shill, but his takes about AI don't seem unusually complementary.
I'm specifically defending advertisement here.
People have the agency to not consume drugs. The point is, marketing is completely absurd, it's an immense inefficiency of the system.
Modern marketing is largely extraordinarily efficient in fact, the opposite of absurd. It does a marvelous job of letting people know that things exist to be purchased. It's a compliment to free will. Buy, don't buy, the choice is yours.
What someone thinks of marketing & advertising will almost always tell you what they think of the intelligence of the typical person. Once you realize that, you realize it's merely a bias that someone is arguing from, that they think most everybody else is a moron and should be deprived of their individual liberty (for their own safety).
It makes the system very inefficient, don't twist my words, you're talking about something else. And this is not about intelligence, I'm not saying people make stupid choices. This is a question of perverse marketing incentives.
You haven't really said why it's inefficient, just saying it doesn't make it so. I can see the point of why it's efficient, that it shows people what is possible to buy in the market that they otherwise would not have known of, but I don't see it from your side.
To be clear, I'm not saying that advertising under whatever slop chatgpt outputs is killing humanity, I'm more thinking of the industry as a whole. They use lies and deception to influence behavior and push products; even if they're fully aware that the claims they're making are blatant lies and the products are harmful. If that industry disappeared humanity would be better off for it.
and to be fair the industry doesn't need to be banned, just heavily regulated, fully transparent, and there should be exponential consequences for their lies (such as, claiming cigarettes are healthy while knowing they're addictive and cause cancer; anyone involved in decisions like that should be in Angola growing tobacco for 13 cents an hour.)
No I don't think humanity would be better off without ads. Google became what it is with ads.
Google having become what it is doesn’t seem like a good argument.
Go to any third world country, peep into their phones and you will realise
- they are using android
- google maps
- youtube
Not to mention Waymo and LLM's literally came out of Google. Google will go down as one of the most important institutions in the last 100 years.
Google is one the most important institution of the Internet era. Talk all you'd like about "OoOoH tHeY aDvErTiSe" or "tHeiR aLgOrItHm Is GeTtInG wOrSe" but at the end of the day, Google still brought knowledge to more people than anything before (apart from maybe Gutenberg).
More knowledge, more misinformation. Hard to know if a world without google would be better or worse.
"just" advertisements when ChatGPT is designed to be sycophantic and manipulative
No its not designed to be that way. I literally can't get ChatGPT to agree with me on 5.2 with many things. Its just not possible.. I'd request you to give me an example of it being sycophantic and encouraging delusional behaviour (as a shareable link).
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/01/chatgpt-wrote-go...
Everyone who works at chatgpt has blood on their hands
[flagged]
Do you have any evidence that this claim is true? That it was "designed" for this? That would be a pretty difficult conspiracy for them to keep secret
They famously literally had to turn down the sycophancy. ChatGPT is designed to get you addicted to it: https://openai.com/index/sycophancy-in-gpt-4o/
Do you think this is evidence that it was designed that way, as opposed to the exact opposite?
It was not designed that way, so they had to specifically do extra things to make it not that way.
This is like saying that python is designed to be slow and linking to a post about speeding up the python interpreter as evidence
[flagged]
Spoken like a true advertiser.
The reality is that psychologically manipulating people into buying things by forcing yourself as a middleman into every business transaction and industry on the planet is not just morally despicable, but opportunistic, exploitative, and many other negative descriptors I can't quite put into words.
But this isn't even the truly insidious and harmful part. That is reserved for the fact that the same systems used to get people to consume, are also used to manipulate them into thinking and acting in ways that someone, somewhere, could potentially benefit from. So anyone with a negligible amount of resources and effort has the ability to influence individuals, groups of people, societies, and entire countries, to buy into their agenda by pushing their propaganda. After all, modern advertising uses the same propaganda tactics pioneered by the likes of E. Bernays a century ago.
It should be clear to any sane adult that this psychological manipulation is directly responsible for the corruption of democratic processes and sociopolitical instability we've seen around the world for the past decade+.
And then, if all this wasn't enough, these advertising leeches are doing this by violating digital rights, abusing our privacy, corrupting every entertainment experience, and utilizing every nasty trick they can legally get away with to steal our data, and get rich from it via dark data broker markets in perpetuity.
So, please, spare me the bullshit excuse that this is "just" advertising, and that it's a public good that helps poor small businesses reach customers. Catalogs and contextual advertising have existed for decades, but that wasn't enough for these greedy bastards. Humanity is objectively far worse off because of this, and the adtech industry has played a huge role in making it happen. Everyone who has worked on this tech should be ashamed of themselves, even though I'm sure they don't think twice about it, and enjoy the sight of their bank account statements.
People say all this but have no alternative solution.
that's fair, but the sentence "marketing kills the humanity" remains true.
Not really. Advertising results in extreme market inefficiencies through the game theory playing out (if you don't advertise as a company, you lose out to companies that do). It's the massive sink of the modern economy, there's nearly no sector unaffected by it. If advertising was banned (not that it's very easy) vast majority of issues associated with capitalism wouldn't even exist and everybody would be wealthier.
The similarity between advertising and cancer are striking, see the post Advertising is a cancer on society: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20577142
This is all putting aside the fact that %99.9 of all advertising works by exploiting the familiarity circuit in the human brain. The effects of advertising are, by definition, not voluntary. See Ads just work, no matter what you think: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18399633
If the purpose of %99.9 of advertising was not exploiting the familiarity circuit and was instead to make you aware of a product you didn't know about before, there wouldn't be a single ad of Coca-Cola, since everybody on the planet knows about it already.
Also, my mom literally buys whatever she sees playing on YouTube ads that week. I know because I see those ads too. You'd be surprised how many people are going through life with undiagnosed or untreated ADHD and how many further lack cognitive agency.
Almost all products we use today were marketed to us in one way or another using advertisements. Without ads, we would expect a very slow diffusion of information and wait tediously for word of mouth to spread and get access to good products.
Thats not efficient.
Web search is and always was perfectly suited to find the product you need, as are the multitude of e-commerce websites active in any country.
Searching does not require advertising or word of mouth. Word of mouth is not inefficient either in a world with internet, the person telling you about a product likely saw it and purchased it online already.
> if you don't advertise as a company, you lose out to companies that do)
It is working as intended - if you want attention, you gotta pay for it. How else would it work? Charity?
Idk, maybe the company hosts a website and I search the web for "product X"? Or an e-commerce website?
Yeah, and then maybe certain companies could optimize their sites to show up higher on the list of pages, and then maybe some companies can pay other companies for such expertise, and then maybe other companies can pay the search engine directly to show up higher, what an idea right?
It does feel like ensh*ttification. I can't imagine how many school essays and law filings and papers these ads are going to end up embedded in.
But the most charitable view is that even AGI needs cost recovery. Ads are the way you do this for people who aren't willing or able to pay with money.
For better or worse, OpenAI exists in the context of a capitalist system. It has to be competitive in that arena to attract and retain investment, staff, etc. Revenue always ends up being part of the "mission".
Advertisement serves an important purpose. If you were a farmer with a mule and the tractor salesman came by for the first time, that would be life-changing for you. You wouldn't say that salesman was evil for advertising his tractor.
Fair enough, there is some utility to it. But we're quite along way from traveling salesmen advertising tractors. Maybe it doesn't need to be eliminated, just heavily regulated.
What if the salesman said knowingly lied about his tractors? or poisoned the farmer's mules to influence him towards buying one? That'd be on the scale of evil, right?
The poster above me suggested advertising is inherently evil and should be abolished, I was just countering that absolutist position.
I don't disagree that there are absolutely some awful ads out there, and that they should be regulated heavily. I've been getting so many ads for semaglutide on tiktok lately that seem designed to prey on people with eating disorders. Whoever is behind those is evil.
If they can’t advertise, then how should they make a profit/hit break even?
> kinda getting mixed messages here
Did you really expect a corporation to be transparent and consistent with their messaging? It should be obvious by now that the word "open" in their name is pure marketing.
I'm surprised it took them this long to jump on the advertising money train. I wouldn't be surprised if they were already monetizing this in the background, and only decided to make it public now.
When ads were introduced into Google, it objectively made the search product worse. You no longer saw what they thought would be the most relevant result. You literally saw Google's most profitable (it is an auction) result.
If we apply that kind of thinking to chat LLMs, it means instead of getting the most relevant tokens, you'll be shown the most profitable tokens. Maybe the most relevant tokens will be below the fold (like unpaid search results) now.
Just wait for the image generators that have paid product placement like TV and movies do now. You ask for an edit of a photo and it changes an ad in the background to a different company. This idea seems awful, and also so obvious that it is going to happen.
Going to? It happened 20 years ago already: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Force_is_with_Cristal_Beer
> "it objectively made the search product worse"
I would disagree, because without the advertising there probably would be no Google.
Arguably Google could go the way of AOL and no one would notice
This is probably the funniest comment I've seen this week. Yes, I'm sure all 3 billion users of Google products wouldn't notice.
Remember the internet before algorithmic ads and cross site tracking?
We will remember this moment of LLM usage for the years to come as we are irreparably spun by advertisers in our most intimate and private 1:1 conversations with these AIs
Curious how the economics are going to go. ChatGPT has close to a billion MAU and they're losing money even with subscriptions. Meanwhile Google with Gemini is catching up (although I've seen reports that Gemini is also testing ads in their chats, especially without disclosing it's an ad, by linking to Google Shopping [0]). The Google example might show how it might appear:
> Since you are context-switching between multiple projects, you cannot afford to work from a kitchen table with poor ergonomics. These tools make 2-week "sprints" viable:
> Reliable Productivity A portable second monitor is essential for keeping your Slack/Jira open on one side while you code on the other.
> The ASUS ZenScreen is the gold standard for nomads. It's ultra-thin and connects via a single USB-C, meaning you can set up a "pro office" in any Airbnb in under 60 seconds.
> Redundant Connectivity Don't trust Airbnb Wi-Fi for your "Impact Doc" delivery or lead syncs.
> The Netgear Nighthawk M6 provides a dedicated 5G connection. It’s your insurance policy against a bad router in a New Orleans rental house.
> Audio Privacy In urban areas like Chicago or New Orleans, street noise is a constant risk during meetings.
> The Sony WH-1000XM5 headphones have the best background noise cancellation for your microphone. Your manager will hear your voice clearly, even if there's a siren outside your window.
Incidentally, I just saw on Show HN an AI SEO tool [1], wonder if OpenAI will also include similar features in their ad platform. Maybe we'll just type in our questions and it'll spit out stats and graphs itself, now that is more likely.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46533480
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46642490
Ironic to show ads only to your users with the least spending power. Me thinks this will not last. Once the ads get “good enough” they will be everywhere.
they have been doomed for a while, it is just a matter of time, but honestly i like them better than the claude provider, if they can make openai profitable, that would be good for all of us, we don't want a world where gemini is the only winner or the chinese take over
Is there any hope that they wont let any of the ads logic into the rl / pre-training? I'd like for my paid ChatGPT model to offer an unbiased source of truth on what the best products are.
I wonder if they will buff the free tier with higher rate limits because the ads will be able to sustain them
I’ve been paying for Google Workspace for my custom domain for years basically just so I can use Gmail. For just $7 more dollars a month, I upgraded my plan to access Gemini Pro, which has guaranteed enterprise-grade privacy controls. I think this is currently the best value platform for anyone who values their privacy for LLMs. If Apple and the DoD trust Google’s internal controls, I do too.
This too sounds like an ad.
Realistically nothing is going to happen. In fact this propels OpenAI to $1TN in valuation.
Threads introduced ads and almost no-one cared. This will be the exact same result.
If you don't want the ads, then pay $8 for ChatGPT Go.
ChatGPT Go is going to include ads as well.
"In the coming weeks, we’re also planning to start testing ads in the U.S. for the free and Go tiers, so more people can benefit from our tools with fewer usage limits or without having to pay."
Yeah, the predictions of doom are so wildly misplaced. There's even a sibling comment on this thread saying, "When Google introduced ads [note: in 2000], it made the product objectively worse." Sure, and did Google die as a result? Or did it subsequently go from a startup with modest revenue in a company with a multi-trillion dollar market cap and $100 billion in quarterly revenue?
| Long-term value: We do not optimize for time spent in ChatGPT. We prioritize user trust and user experience over revenue.
The unspoken part -- This holds true so long as revenue is at least equal to costs, and speaks nothing about whether user trust and user experience is optimized over profit.
>ChatGPT’s responses will not be influenced by ads
I don't see why I should believe this.
Do you believe google search results are influenced by ads?
Yeah, both directly and indirectly. Over time, "sponsored links" became more and more visually indistinguishable form organic results, and advertising incentives drove changes to the search algorithm.
Cancelling my subscription today
There are no ads on subscriptions.. other than go.
So you want ads then?
Yeah, it’s a scandal that they’re depriving paying users of ads. ;)
I just canceled Plus.
This marks the day advertising entered a new era and got extremely efficient.
Expect all other LLM vendors to follow soon. If they don't, they will lose.
Source: https://openai.com/index/our-approach-to-advertising-and-exp... (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46649577)
Oh, this is so benign and appropriate. This will never escalate, and OpenAI is governed by strict privacy laws and audited by the public so we can trust they won't ever change their policy or have bias injected into their models.
It took many years and billions in profit before Google enshitified. OpenAI? Almost at birth.
Today's userbase is already thoroughly inured to enshittified tech, so why waste time carefully inching your way to the bottom of the shitpit rather than diving straight down? There's money to be made, baby.
Let the enshittification begin.
Then you move to the paid plan, then they move ads to the paid plan, then you move to the premium-extra plan, etc.
Not "ads" in the traditional sense but no one can tell me they won't use it to steer people toward whoever is paying their bills.
What would be the metric by which they bill for it?
Interesting, looking at it from that side. How does it work with traditional real world ads, billboards for example. I'd expect them to have a similar challenge. Not whether the ad was put in front of people, but the high level impact of the whole campaign.
How would advertisers know whether OpenAI even applied the ad to the paid for number of people's conversations, I don't know.
The Enshittification curve is analagous to Moore's law.