Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How ChatGPT serves ads

buchodi.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 383 posts

Re: How ChatGPT serves ads

#161

Post by lelandbatey »

TZubiri wrote: post #147
saghm wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't buy this premise. Nothing stops a company from trying to hide ads in the first place, and plenty of them do. Ad blockers for web content have been a thing for years, and using an ad blocker has continued to be strictly a better experience regardless of how many "organic" ads are present on a page.

[flagged]

Ah yes, the classic "my business plan is your moral problem; you owe me your eyes on my ads because I'm the idiot giving things away for free."

People don't want ads. You imply that "if you accept ads then things will be free" but they will not. Never accept ads. Not for a free service, certainly not in a paid product. Ads exist to enable leaching in both direction in exchange for what ends up being nearly mind control. But it is two-way leaching - companies benefit without the friction of explicit payment, consumers get a service without explicitly paying via money. The downside is neither can stop the bad-incentives motivating bad actions from the other side.

Ads are a deal with the devil, and rejecting them outright is allowed via that deal, just as companies can withdraw their free service. It cuts both ways.

Re: How ChatGPT serves ads

#162

Post by LtWorf »

jimmygrapes wrote: post #83
programjames wrote: post #68

Less than two years ago, Sam Altman said > I kind of think of ads as a last resort for us for a business model. I would do it if it meant that was the only way to get everybody in the world access to great services, but if we can find something that doesn't do that, I'd prefer that. So, is this OpenAI announcing they're strapped for cash?

Charitably, it seems that we have yet to find, as a species/society, anything more effectively profitable than ads. I cannot blame those who come to this conclusion so long as no more powerful and proven motivator yet exists. I hate it, but I understand.

I think ads are just overpriced and companies do not really get that return. But marketing people have no metrics to show that.

Re: How ChatGPT serves ads

#163

Post by whiplash451 »

Aurornis wrote: post #94
programjames wrote: post #68

Less than two years ago, Sam Altman said > I kind of think of ads as a last resort for us for a business model. I would do it if it meant that was the only way to get everybody in the world access to great services, but if we can find something that doesn't do that, I'd prefer that. So, is this OpenAI announcing they're strapped for cash?

The ads are for the free tier and new $8 ad-supported plan. The revenue from a few ads on the free tier in exchange for limited queries to GPT-5.3 is negligible compared to what they pull in from API costs and the subscription plans. This looks like a play to justify the existence of the previously money-losing free tier as they go into an IPO. Throw some ads in there to make it closer to a neutral on the balance she…

That's how it begins.

Re: How ChatGPT serves ads

#164

Post by encom »

TZubiri wrote: post #147
saghm wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't buy this premise. Nothing stops a company from trying to hide ads in the first place, and plenty of them do. Ad blockers for web content have been a thing for years, and using an ad blocker has continued to be strictly a better experience regardless of how many "organic" ads are present on a page.

[flagged]

[flagged]

Re: How ChatGPT serves ads

#165

Post by jameshush »

mgambati wrote: post #138
torben-friis wrote: post #62

These are the less worrying kind of ads in our future. Seeing how google has been fighting SEO for ages, what's going to happen when companies figure out how to inject ads into the model? We haven't yet seen the problem of adversarial content in play, I think.

The model already advertises because they where trained on massive data’s that refers big brands. Ask for suggestions for a new pair of shoes. What brand do you think it will suggest Nike, Adidas or some random small one?

I expected the same out come you're saying here, but in my experience this hasn't been the case. I've been researching new acoustic guitars to purchase, and I've been getting an equal amount of suggestions from the major brands and the small brands.

Part of it though is I'm giving lots of context (e.g. guitar player for 10+ years, huge Opeth fan, looking for something with as close to an Ibanez style neck as possible under $1000)

Re: How ChatGPT serves ads

#166

Post by michaelt »

plemer wrote: post #130
staticshock wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Feels to me like idealism crossing into realism. OpenAI could be the next Google, or the next Facebook, or the next… I don't know, Netflix? All those companies (and many other large tech companies) have discovered the same arbitrage that older media companies discovered decades ago, which is that we, on the average, are much more willing to pay with attention than with money, even where money would have been the bett…

Altman is an idealist? I read this as: I know ads are likely if not inevitable but I can’t say that while I’m trying to gain users and inspire trust but I’ll start to float even in this non-denial the justification for the thing I’m ultimately going to do.

The ideal is "It would be ideal if everyone on the planet voluntarily paid me $20/month"

Most billionaires are idealists when it comes to this one particular ideal.

Re: How ChatGPT serves ads

#167

Post by Brystephor »

benleejamin wrote: post #29

I'd always thought that ChatGPT ads would be indistinguishable from actual content.

I work at a company that mainly makes money off ads. Theres no doubt in my mind that the end goal is to make their ads blend into organic content and make them indistinguishable. Typically that results in positive A/B metrics. Its also a reason why influencer driven ads perform well, they seem more organic.

Re: How ChatGPT serves ads

#168

Post by duskdozer »

TZubiri wrote: post #149
estimator7292 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What possible reason could they have to not always run both? It would make zero sense to leave that money on the table

It's simpler to do one thing than to do two. You make a choice and you do that. Could they be doing opaque ads right now and we wouldn't know? It's possible, that will probably eventually come to light and it might have legal consequences, but sure it's possible. But it's not a given, and your logic of "it would make zero sense to leave money on the table" is certainly not a QED, it's absolute reductionism.

It sounds rational then to block as many non-opaque ads as possible, because that isn't their preferred choice.

Re: How ChatGPT serves ads

#169

Post by keyle »

yfw wrote: post #158
staticshock wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Feels to me like idealism crossing into realism. OpenAI could be the next Google, or the next Facebook, or the next… I don't know, Netflix? All those companies (and many other large tech companies) have discovered the same arbitrage that older media companies discovered decades ago, which is that we, on the average, are much more willing to pay with attention than with money, even where money would have been the bett…

So realistically no agi

By all accounts, we're 2 years away from AGI, every year.

Re: How ChatGPT serves ads

#170

Post by danparsonson »

programjames wrote: post #68

Less than two years ago, Sam Altman said > I kind of think of ads as a last resort for us for a business model. I would do it if it meant that was the only way to get everybody in the world access to great services, but if we can find something that doesn't do that, I'd prefer that. So, is this OpenAI announcing they're strapped for cash?

No, I suspect that "I kind of think of ads as a last resort" was doublespeak for "ads are coming eventually".

I would tend to think of someone like him as a person who uses words to achieve a specific goal, rather than someone who speaks whatever is truly on their mind. Whether those words are lies or truth or somewhere in between is irrelevant; what matters to them is the outcome.

It's likely a waste of time trying to unpick the meaning, because there is none. "But Sam Altman said..." to me has about as much value as "ChatGPT told me...".

Post reply on HN