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

261–270 of 296 posts

Re: Leaked deck reveals how OpenAI is pitching publisher partnerships

#261

Post by mvkel »

drawkward wrote: post #188
mvkel wrote: post #177

Folks who are reacting with > 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 tha…

The people who are reacting with > ugh I hate ads. Bye ChatGPT subscription! are merely two years ahead of you in the product lifecycle. All advertising is spam. It is a cancer that gobbles up all host environments until nothing but ad content is left.

The web you enjoy today would simply not exist without advertising.

Re: Leaked deck reveals how OpenAI is pitching publisher partnerships

#262

Post by nequo »

sangnoir wrote: post #142
boringg wrote: post #102

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

> if a competitor pays more down the line

Unless competition gets regulated away, which Altman is advocating for:

  he supported the creation of a federal agency that can grant licenses to create AI models above a certain threshold of capabilities, and can also revoke those licenses if the models don't meet safety guidelines set by the government.
https://time.com/6280372/sam-altman-chatgpt-regulate-ai/

Re: Leaked deck reveals how OpenAI is pitching publisher partnerships

#263

Post by oehpr »

eightysixfour wrote: post #242
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.

I love when people say stuff like this. When people read “interact with brand” they automatically assume it is some dumb, low value garbage like chatting with Burger King. You “interact with brands” all of the time. You are literally posting this on YC’s public forum, an asset which YC uses to foster a community of the consumers of its investment portfolio’s products. You are interacting with the brand.

Yes.

People assume that because they are correct.

It is always vacuous. Always. If it wasn't, money would not be changing hands.

No one's paying corporate sponsorship money so I can have more foot to centura carpet interaction in my house. They're paying openAI money as compensation for them actively making their product worse.

Re: Leaked deck reveals how OpenAI is pitching publisher partnerships

#264

Post by noman-land »

samfriedman wrote: post #29

>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 not a fear, it's a certainty. The most effective and insidious form of advertizing will come hidden inside model weights and express itself invisibly in the subtleties of all generated responses.

Re: Leaked deck reveals how OpenAI is pitching publisher partnerships

#265

Post by [deleted] »

OtherShrezzing wrote: post #216
devbent wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Since 1987, labour productivity has doubled[1]. A 5x increase would be immediately obvious. If a tool were able to increase productivity on that scale, it would lift every human out of poverty. It'd probably move humanity into a post-scarcity species. 5x is "by Monday afternoon, staff have each done 40 pre-ai-equivalent-hours worth of work". [1] https://usafacts.org/articles/what-is-labor-productivity-and...

[deleted]

Re: Leaked deck reveals how OpenAI is pitching publisher partnerships

#266

Post by Eisenstein »

whatevaa wrote: post #157
mempko wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean for a split second I thought "Wow, they were charging for their service, this is nice". I guess that isn't enough anymore. You pay them and then they also get paid by selling you. What a world we live in.

At the cost of running those models, they are probably loosing money on you.

Selling your product at a loss until you take over an inelastic market and then selling your customer's attention and information to others who provide you more income should not be a legitimate way to do business.

Re: Leaked deck reveals how OpenAI is pitching publisher partnerships

#267

Post by aubanel »

> Additionally, members of the program receive priority placement and “richer brand expression” in chat conversations

This sounds particularly bad since it's the polar opposite of what Sam Altman himself pretended to want in his recent Lex Fridman ITW (March 17):

> I like that people pay for ChatGPT and know that the answers they’re getting are not influenced by advertisers. I’m sure there’s an ad unit that makes sense for LLMs, and I’m sure there’s a way to participate in the transaction stream in an unbiased way that is okay to do, but it’s also easy to think about the dystopic visions of the future where you ask ChatGPT something and it says, “Oh, you should think about buying this product,” or, “You should think about going here for your vacation,” or whatever. > (01:21:08) And I don’t know, we have a very simple business model and I like it, and I know that I’m not the product. I know I’m paying and that’s how the business model works.

Re: Leaked deck reveals how OpenAI is pitching publisher partnerships

#268

Post by sorokod »

kadushka wrote: post #247
sorokod wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you be offered this option?

Because I'm willing to pay for it?

You may not be offered a choice because you will be paying even with advertising content present.

Re: Leaked deck reveals how OpenAI is pitching publisher partnerships

#269

Post by Voultapher »

tivert wrote: post #196
Voultapher wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technology by and large accelerates and concentrates. 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 ar…

> 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. Is that some idea you got from Daniel Schmachtenberger? Literally the old reference I can find on the web to "technology is obli…

> Anyway, I'm skeptical. For one, that seems to assume an anarchic social order, where anyone can make any choice they like (externalities be damned) and no one can stop them. That doesn't describe our world except maybe, sometimes, at the nation-state level between great powers.

In my experience that's exactly the world we live in. The combination of capitalism and science are currently driving the sixth mass extinction. https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2022/09/death-by-hockey-sticks/

> Secondly, I think embracing that idea would mainly serve to create a permission structure for "techbros" (for lack of a better term), to pursue whatever harmful technology they have the impulse to and reject any personal responsibility for their actions or the harm they cause (e.g. exactly "It's ok for me to hurt you, because if I don't someone else will, so it's inevitable and quit complaining").

I was making an observation of the effects technology has had the last 12000 years. So far it has been predominantly obligate. I want a future where that's not the case anymore. I don't have the full plan on how to get there. But I believe an important step is to get away of our current concept of wealth, as tied to growth and resource usage.

Re: Leaked deck reveals how OpenAI is pitching publisher partnerships

#270

Post by TheCoelacanth »

nequo wrote: post #262
sangnoir wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

> if a competitor pays more down the line Unless competition gets regulated away, which Altman is advocating for: he supported the creation of a federal agency that can grant licenses to create AI models above a certain threshold of capabilities, and can also revoke those licenses if the models don't meet safety guidelines set by the government. https://time.com/6280372/sam-altman-chatgpt-regulate-ai/

Competing marketer, not competing AI company.
Post reply on HN