281–290 of 296 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Presentations are not “decks” Obviously they are, given how common the usage is. But out of curiosity, why do you feel strongly about this?
> Obviously they are, given how common the usage is. Just because something is, common, accepted, or written in stone, doesn’t mean it’s correct. > But out of curiosity, why do you feel strongly about this? Because it’s stupid business jargon that no one had the balls to speak up the first time in history when some micro-managing egotistical C-level exec uttered this debauchery. They should have looked at them like t…
When it comes to language, it sort of does.
> should have looked at them like they had two heads and said “What the fuck did you just call the power point
Presentation decks pre-date PowerPoint. (I think it derives from how a deck of slides resembles a deck of cards?)
Makes more sense to me than tape decks, anyway.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number
My point stands. Thats like one guy. Thats not ""an entire industry gets shutdown by the government". That was my point. Sure, they might go after like one guy or one company. They aren't going to take out half of the tech startups in all of the US though. They also aren't going to confiscate everyone's gamer PCs. I also think its funny that you literally posted a wikipedia page, where in the page itself it contains…
Also known as an example
> So that proves my entire point
Your point is that you can't use it commercially? Great! We're aligned, then.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Only if the health care program paid more than Slim Jim is the problem.
I'm doubtful. I don't think advertisers generally will want to pay for their results to come up in conversations about suicide and I don't think OpenAI will want the negative publicity for handling suicide so crassly for the pittance they would get on such a tiny portion of their overall queries.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My point stands. Thats like one guy. Thats not ""an entire industry gets shutdown by the government". That was my point. Sure, they might go after like one guy or one company. They aren't going to take out half of the tech startups in all of the US though. They also aren't going to confiscate everyone's gamer PCs. I also think its funny that you literally posted a wikipedia page, where in the page itself it contains…
> Thats like one guy Also known as an example > So that proves my entire point Your point is that you can't use it commercially? Great! We're aligned, then.
Why would anyone use chatgpt if it spams you? The second it recommends me a product i'm issuing a chargeback.
The majority of internet users still use Google and these days it’s just a page full of sponsored links and products that are (purposely) hard to discern from the actual results. The content in the carousels for the sponsored products is richer than the content in the actual results. Given that, I don’t think people would change their ChatGPT usage habits much if ads were introduced.
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!!!
Or you will pay a monthly subscription and get no ads.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think there was much reason to believe the endgame was ever going to be anything but this.
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.
What do you think the logical endgame is when brainchips allow advertisements into your dreams and you can be extorted with a monthly subscription to avoid braindamage?