Live data from Hacker News

Leaked deck reveals how OpenAI is pitching publisher partnerships

adweek.com

91–100 of 296 posts

Re: Leaked deck reveals how OpenAI is pitching publisher partnerships

#91

>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.

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

Everything is biased. The problem is when that bias is hidden and likely to be material to your use case. These leaked deals definitely qualify as both hidden and likely to be material to most use cases whereas more random human biases or biases inherent in accessible data may not.

> non-consensual incorporation of openly available data problematic; this is an obvious alternative option

A problematic alternative to an alleged injustice just moves the problem, it’s not a true resolution.

> there is transparency laws in most jurisdictions for that already and I don't see why OpenAI would not honour them

Hostile compliance is unfortunately a reality so this ought to give little comfort.

Re: Leaked deck reveals how OpenAI is pitching publisher partnerships

#92

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

"People" seem to use Reddit/Instagram/TikTok even though at least half of it is spam.

How does anyone know if a question on how to fix something or tutorial is not recommending specific solutions or products based on someone paying for that recommendation?

Re: Leaked deck reveals how OpenAI is pitching publisher partnerships

#93

>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.

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

Altman should have taken equity if this is the route.

Re: Leaked deck reveals how OpenAI is pitching publisher partnerships

#94
post #85
post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The main reason is that GPT-4 is still significantly better than everything else. Time will tell if OpenAI will be able to retain the lead in the race, though. While there's no public competing model with equal power yet, competitors are definitely much closer than they were before, and keep advancing. But, of course, GPT-5 might be another major leap.

That's not true really. With well written prompts GPT4 is better at some things and worse at others than Claude/Llama3. GPT4 only appears to be the best by a wide margin if your benchmark suite is vague, poorly specified prompts and your metric for evaluation is "did it guess what I wanted accurately"

Re: Leaked deck reveals how OpenAI is pitching publisher partnerships

#95
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

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? :)

> And who's to say the advertising industry-blessed training material is not the highest standard of truth? :)

Anyone who understands what perverse incentives are, that’s who. Or are you just playing the relativism card?

Re: Leaked deck reveals how OpenAI is pitching publisher partnerships

#97

So soon enough we'll get stuff like: > Me: Give me a small sample code in Ruby that takes two parameters and returns the Levenshtein distance between them. > ChatGPT: DID YOU HEAR ABOUT C#? It's even faster that light, now with better performance than Ruby!!! Get started here: https://ms.com/cs I can generate the code in Ruby or I can give you 20% discount on Microsoft publishing on any C# book!!!

i became more and more repulsed as i read your comment. I felt myself twitch towards the end of it.

Re: Leaked deck reveals how OpenAI is pitching publisher partnerships

#99
post #50

>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.

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

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.

Re: Leaked deck reveals how OpenAI is pitching publisher partnerships

#100
People here seem to treat this like advertising, because it kinda sounds familiar to advertising. I’m as critical of ClosedAI as the next guy, but let’s think that idea through: OpenAI are the ones paying the content provider for exposure, not the other way around. In return they get training data.

The only reason for OpenAI to do this is if it makes their models better in some way so that they can monetize that performance lift. So I think incentives here are still aligned for OpenAI to not just shill whatever content but actually use it to improve their product.

Post reply on HN