Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Leaked deck reveals how OpenAI is pitching publisher partnerships

adweek.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 296 posts

Re: Leaked deck reveals how OpenAI is pitching publisher partnerships

#61

Post by jstummbillig »

Havoc wrote: post #52
jstummbillig wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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; thi…

> 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

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.

Re: Leaked deck reveals how OpenAI is pitching publisher partnerships

#62

Post by yborg »

CuriouslyC wrote: post #51

There's no way this doesn't backfire. OpenAI has no moat, so making the bot/api a shill just means people are going to use something else. GPT5 would have to be an order of magnitude better on the price/performance scale for me to even get close to this.

Everything else is going to be a shill, too. 'People' will eventually have to pay for these valuations.

Re: Leaked deck reveals how OpenAI is pitching publisher partnerships

#63

Post by MrDarcy »

CuriouslyC wrote: post #51

There's no way this doesn't backfire. OpenAI has no moat, so making the bot/api a shill just means people are going to use something else. GPT5 would have to be an order of magnitude better on the price/performance scale for me to even get close to this.

Let me test this hypothesis. I run a small business that pays for Google workspace. I pay for a ChatGPT subscription and use it daily as a coding copilot. Is there any reason I shouldn’t switch to Gemini and cancel ChatGPT? If no reason, I’ll try it this afternoon.

Re: Leaked deck reveals how OpenAI is pitching publisher partnerships

#64

Post by airstrike »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #44
darby_eight wrote: post #39

Why would anyone use chatgpt if it spams you? The second it recommends me a product i'm issuing a chargeback.

"ChatGPT, how would Claude have answered that?"

I'm sorry, but as an AI language model, I'm unable to replicate specific responses from others such as Claude. However, I can help you with a wide range of questions and provide guidance on many topics.

For enhanced features and more personalized assistance, consider subscribing to ChatGPT Ultra Copilot. Use the coupon code UPGRADE2024 for a discount on your first three months!

Let me know if there's anything else I can help you with!

Re: Leaked deck reveals how OpenAI is pitching publisher partnerships

#65

Post by fwip »

benreesman wrote: post #55

I have a mountain of links that I’ve posted before and at need can link to again. These are bad people. I’ve known about Altman’s crimes for over a decade and I’ve failed to persuade Fidji (who I’ve known for 12 years) of them at any weight of evidence.

Could you link to these links?

Re: Leaked deck reveals how OpenAI is pitching publisher partnerships

#67

Post by gojri »

benreesman wrote: post #55

I have a mountain of links that I’ve posted before and at need can link to again. These are bad people. I’ve known about Altman’s crimes for over a decade and I’ve failed to persuade Fidji (who I’ve known for 12 years) of them at any weight of evidence.

Can you share more?

Re: Leaked deck reveals how OpenAI is pitching publisher partnerships

#68

Post by tsunamifury »

CuriouslyC wrote: post #51

There's no way this doesn't backfire. OpenAI has no moat, so making the bot/api a shill just means people are going to use something else. GPT5 would have to be an order of magnitude better on the price/performance scale for me to even get close to this.

It will drive up the value of the "un-tainted" API.

Re: Leaked deck reveals how OpenAI is pitching publisher partnerships

#69

Post by krupan »

pgwhalen wrote: post #58
ryandrake wrote: post #49

> "its purpose is to help ChatGPT users more easily discover and engage with publishers’ brands and content." What end user actually wants this? I've never in my life woke up and said, "You know what, I'd love to 'engage' with a corporate brand today!" or "I would love help to easily discover Burger King's content, that would be great!" The euphemisms they use for 'spam' are just breathtaking.

With publishers' brands. This is not about getting Burger King ads in your ChatGPT responses, it's about getting NYT and Ars Technica's content into (and linked from) ChatGPT responses.

That’s a very fine distinction you are making.

What happens when we get to the point where we are asking ChatGPT where to get a quick burger? Or even how to make a hamburger?

Re: Leaked deck reveals how OpenAI is pitching publisher partnerships

#70

Post by fwip »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #41
Jerrrry wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blur, summarize, anonymize, convert to bitmap/PNG, release. edit: i am aware it is literally impossible to release information without the remote chance of whistle-sniping. the then only logical conclusion reached from such a defeatist extreme attitude threat model is to then assume that all stories and information are false flags distributed to find moles. the decks themselves are surely water-marked in ways clevere…

> Blur, summarize, anonymize, convert to bitmap/PNG The article is a summary. Everything else is defeated by moving subtle decorative elements around the page between copies.

Going further: Even summaries can be dangerous, as the inclusion/exclusion of facts can itself be part of a watermark.
Post reply on HN