201–210 of 296 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're offering an expensive service for free. Could it go any other way?
Counterpoint - I pay for my whole team to have access, shared tools, etc. we also spend a decent amount on their APIs across a number of client projects. OpenAI has a strong revenue model based on paid use
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could you link to these links?
I'm creepin: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39935200
I post under my real name, and I link to credible sources.
Thank you for sparing me the trouble of rustling up, for the trillionth time, the damning documentary evidence.
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 perf…
For the time being, though, I think you're right that this seems to be something a little more innocuous.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Indeed. How much more evidence do we need that in the end, technology always is at the service of the power structure; the structure stutters briefly at the onset of innovation until it manages to adapt and harness technology to reinforce the positions of the powerful. Progress happens in that brief period before the enshittification takes root. The FAANGS exist now solely to devour innovators and either stamp them o…
Personally, I'd deny there's ever any progress against the power structure due to technology itself. Anything that seems like "progress" is ephemeral or illusionary.
And that truth needs to be constantly compared to the incessant false promises of a utopia just around the corner that tech's hype-men make.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, they have not done that. Presumably they believe that the model training was done in fair use and no court has said otherwise yet. It will take years for that stuff to settle out in court, and by that time none of that will matter, and the winners of the AI race will be those who didn't wait for this question to be settled.
They believe a lot of things, I'm sure. > and the winners of the AI race will be those who didn't wait for this question to be settled. Hopefully they'll be in jail.
Sure you can sue OpenAI.
But will you be able to sue every single AI startup that happens to be working on Open Source AI tech, that was all trained this way? Absolutely not. Its simply not feasible. The cat is out of the bag.
>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.
You use LLM to get super-powered intent signals, then show ads based on those intents.
Fucking around with the actual product function for financial reasons is a road to ruin.
In the Google model, the first few things you see are ads, but everything after that is "organic" and not influenced by who is directly paying for it. People trust it as a result - the majority of the results are "real". If the results are just whoever is paying, the utility rapidly drops off and people will vote with their feet/clicks/eyeballs.
But hey, what do I know.