171–180 of 296 posts
So wait, there will be ads in your ChatGPT conversation, you just won't know they are ads?
Sounds a bit illegal. I have to assume they'd notify the end-user, at a bare minimum.
Can be fixed by an EULA update that adds a clause stating "Response may contain paid product placement" to be im compliance with laws written for television 20 years ago. Legislation is consistently behind technological advances
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 can only hope we're so lucky that the enshittification happens that quickly and thoroughly. It would be yet another clear demonstration that technology won't save us from our social system. It will just get us even more of it, good and hard. The utopian hype is a lie.
I like the framing that technology is obligate. It doesn't matter whether you've built a machine that will transform the world into paperclips, sowing misery on its path and decimating the community of life. Even if you refuse to use it, someone will, because it gives short term benefits.
As you say, the root issue lies in the framework of co-habitation that we are currently practicing. I think one important step has to be decoupling the concept of wealth from growth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
OpenAI's problem is demonstrating how much value their tools add to a worker's productivity. However calculating how much value a worker has in an organization is already a mostly unsolved problem for humanity, so it is no surprise that even if a tool 5xs human productivity, the makers of the tool will have serious problems demonstrating the tool's value.
While I've no doubt GPT-4 is a more capable model then llama3, I don't get any benefit using it compared to llama3 70B, from the real use benchmark I ran in a personal project last week: they both give solid response the majority of times, and make stupid mistakes often enough so I can't trust them blindly, with no flagrant difference in accuracy between those two.
And if I want to use hosted service, groq makes Llama70 run much faster than GPT-4 so there's less frustration of waiting for the answer (I don't think it matters to much in terms of productivity though, as this time is pretty negligible in reality, but it does affect the UX quite a bit).
>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.
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.
However, I then asked both, "Update the resource.spec.model field to represent any valid JSON object."
Gemini told me to use a google.protobuf.Any type.
GPT4 told me to use a google.protobuf.Struct type.
Both are valid, but the Struct is more correct and avoids a ton of issues with middle boxes.
Anyway, sample size of 1 but it does seem like GPT4 is better, even for as well-specified prompts as I can muster.
OpenAI doesn't realize that while it brings in revenue it opens door for a competitor who returns the results users asked for instead of what you get paid for.
> ugh I hate ads. Bye ChatGPT subscription!
I would recommend reading the article in full.
The gist is all of these efforts are in exchange for realtime browsing. In other words: if you ask it "who won this weekend's f1 race?" It can browse ESPN for the answer, then tell you "here's what ESPN says."
Exactly like you'd see on Google. Or, you know, ESPN.com.
Certainly a better experience than "I'm sorry, as of my knowledge cutoff date..."
To conflate that experience with heavy product placement and non-useful assistant answers, it just tells me that you didn't read the article.
> Additionally, members of the program receive priority placement and “richer brand expression” in chat conversations, and their content benefits from more prominent link treatments. Hi, the future called and it's been enshittified. Hey, OpenAI! You could harness AI to give every child a superhuman intelligence as a tutor, you could harness AI to cut through endless reams of SEO'd bullshit that is the old enshittifie…
> AI to give every child a superhuman intelligence as a tutor How much would you pay for that? > AI to cut through endless reams of SEO'd bullshit that is the old enshittified internet How much would you pay for that? Is it more or less than what a company would pay OpenAI to boost their brand?
I would pay $TAXES for that. The United States collectively pays over $800 billion a year for public education (https://educationdata.org/public-education-spending-statisti...).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> Brands that get it on the earliest training in large volume will have benefits accrued over the long term. That's the sales pitch - the truth is if a competitor pays more down the line - they can be fine-tuned in to replace earlier deals