Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand this line of reasoning. I don't do auctions, but if I did, it would be because I want that item. When I want something, I never have an absolute hard price ceiling; if I'm willing to pay $10000, I'm willing to pay $10000.01. I can't imagine anyone who would be happy to pay $X for an item but not $X + $0.01. Like, if I'm at a store and an item costs $500, and I bring it to the checkout and the cashi…
it's because this argument of "what is $0.01 more?" can be extended forever, implying you are willing to pay an infinite amount of money for anything. since we know this is silly, we try to understand what our "real" maximum is. this is difficult to do for exactly the reasons you mention in your comment! surely $0.01 is negligible! there is a tension here. and so, absolute max price is not a fantasy - the world would…
eBay explicitly bans AI "buy for me" agents in user agreement update
201–210 of 363 posts
Re: eBay explicitly bans AI "buy for me" agents in user agreement update
#202Can’t charge for something if you’re giving it away for free. Data’s the only moat left. Companies like stack overflow need to build revenue streams from AI or they will cease to exist. By banning bots and then licensing some kind of access, eBay can protect itself from merely being a listing point that no human actually visits. Tailwind and their adverts via docs model, eBay and its promoted listings model, we’re go…
Note that Stack Overflow has already ceased to exist. https://xcancel.com/marcgravell/status/1922922817143660783
Re: eBay explicitly bans AI "buy for me" agents in user agreement update
#203Earlier quoted context omitted.
The logic of "you shouldn't ever need to snipe, just bid your max price" only works if we assume that the max price is a red line though. If I "value something" at $5000 (as in I want to buy it at $5000), and I bid $5000, and someone bids $5000.01, I would probably be happy if I sniped them and got the item for $5000.02.
I'm not defending "you shouldn't ever need to snipe, just bid your max price" as a hard principle, just trying to explain where the idea comes from. Sniping can be strategic for lots of reasons: you don't have to commit to a bid until the last second (in case you find a similar item for cheaper elsewhere), you deny other people information, you might avoid anxiety from wondering whether your bid will win, etc. That s…
> But if you set a max price at $5000 and would be happy to get the item at $5000.02 (for some reason other than satisfaction from sniping), then you set your max price wrong, or at least differently from how economists expect you to set it.
I think this is the problem. When most sciences observe reality diverge from the model, they see that as a flaw in the model. When economists (at least you HN "economists") observe reality diverge from the model, they seem to see that as a flaw in reality.
The model is wrong.
Re: eBay explicitly bans AI "buy for me" agents in user agreement update
#204Earlier quoted context omitted.
I reckon that's empirically false. Shops set prices like $499.99 for a reason. (And it has to be theoretically false, otherwise $X is equivalent to $X + $0.01 for all X, and so if you'd buy something at 1c you'd buy it for the contents of your bank account.) If you still dispute this, you need to try to explain how a larger price difference can affect your decision. If you'd happily place a $1 bid, and you'd definite…
Adding a single grain of sand to a small pile of sand never turns it into a big pile of sand, yet big piles of sand exist... well, how is that possible? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox
Yes of course I know the Sorites paradox (and I can give my take on it if you are interested), but what point are you making in the context of this discussion?
Re: eBay explicitly bans AI "buy for me" agents in user agreement update
#205Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suspect they might lose money on returns too, which are probably more likely if an AI misunderstands what the buyer wants or misjudges quality or can’t detect fake listings etc
I don’t know if there are other ways eBay could lose money on returns. But my single data point: the very first thing I sold on eBay (a manual lever espresso machine) got returned because the buyer clearly didn’t know how to use it, and claimed it was defective. And because eBay has a money back guarantee, they just reached their hands into my back account and withdrew the earnings from the sale + the shipping costs…
eBay needs to focus attention, efforts and resources on this if it's an increasing problem so the alternative uses for those resources is a cost.
If sellers like you get mad and don't list that costs them too.
Re: eBay explicitly bans AI "buy for me" agents in user agreement update
#206Earlier quoted context omitted.
The purchasing itself can important for it to jump on a great price. Maybe it finds what you're looking for at 1a while you're sleeping for example. Also if this were a business and you were going to resell it the AI could also create the listing as soon as the item is purchased.
I can't think of a scenario in which me buying some used stuff on ebay is that serious to be honest, having the AI buy would be a huge risk as well. > Also if this were a business and you were going to resell it the AI could also create the listing as soon as the item is purchased. That sounds like an awful grift, but good point, people might use such a system for that.
This all sounds like janky, low margin day trading for physical crap.
Re: eBay explicitly bans AI "buy for me" agents in user agreement update
#207Earlier quoted context omitted.
I reckon that's empirically false. Shops set prices like $499.99 for a reason. (And it has to be theoretically false, otherwise $X is equivalent to $X + $0.01 for all X, and so if you'd buy something at 1c you'd buy it for the contents of your bank account.) If you still dispute this, you need to try to explain how a larger price difference can affect your decision. If you'd happily place a $1 bid, and you'd definite…
Regarding the last part: it's simple, $1.01 is less than $100 This process doesn't work endlessly. You can't just add $.01 a billion times and I'd still pay it. But it works once or twice. Shops set prices like $499.99 due to funny psychological effects: $499.99 is still a price "in the 400s" while $500 is "in the 500s". Nobody sits down and thinks logically about it and concludes that no, the $.01 difference between…
Are you:
- agreeing there must be some threshold such that if the price is $X then you will buy(/bid on) the item, but if the price is $X + $0.01 then you won't;
- but maintaining that in a case where you have already decided to buy/bid and the price then rises by $0.01, you will always go ahead and pay the extra cent (provided this hasn't already happened a bunch of times)?
If so, then I don't see the original problem. Do your best to estimate X (or, more specifically, the value of X you actually endorse as your 'true' valuation), and put that in as your maximum bid. If you get the item at $X you'll be marginally pleased; if you get it for less then you'll be more pleased; and if you miss out on it then you shouldn't mind, as you knew it was only going to be just barely worth it at $X.
If you're actually disagreeing with the first point, then you still need to explain how that can make sense. It's coherent to say that in practice, after making the decision to buy at a given price, you would always accept a 1c price rise but at some point between the first 1c rise and the billionth you'd tell the guy to piss off. But that's not the same as saying the actual value of the item, separate from the emotions involved in the purchase process, is somehow indeterminate. If it's not worth it at $1, and it's worth it at $100, but 1c can never take it from "worth it" to "not worth it", then ?
Re: eBay explicitly bans AI "buy for me" agents in user agreement update
#208Earlier quoted context omitted.
I never understood why eBay set things up to enable sniping. Many years ago, there was an auction site called uBid. They had the sane rule: Bidding is open as long as there have been bids in the past 5 minutes. So the end date could be January 24th, 3pm, but if someone bids at 2:58pm, the deadline is extended to 3:05pm. And it keeps going. You know, like how auctions in the real world work.
> I never understood why eBay set things up to enable sniping. I've seen studies on auction method that suggest the difference in the final price (between explicit end time and the more traditional extend-until-bidding-stops method) is negligible for online auctions except in a few special cases. This is a marked difference from the expectation that, like a real-world in-person auction, the extending deadline might e…
> being able to snipe so favoured eBay with more of their attention and this brought more sellers to the platform
Did they measure the impact of people who stopped using the platform due to their bids being sniped?
Re: eBay explicitly bans AI "buy for me" agents in user agreement update
#209Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't think of a scenario in which me buying some used stuff on ebay is that serious to be honest, having the AI buy would be a huge risk as well. > Also if this were a business and you were going to resell it the AI could also create the listing as soon as the item is purchased. That sounds like an awful grift, but good point, people might use such a system for that.
This all sounds like janky, low margin day trading for physical crap.
Yes! Sounds fun to me, not sure what you're getting at, it's not supposed to be a business idea!
Just a tool I would enjoy having because I sometimes like to buy used things.