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

Our approach to advertising

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 252 posts

Re: Our approach to advertising

#211

Post by johanyc »

falloutx wrote: post #174
rm445 wrote: post #162

People are reacting negatively to the ads, but there's a bigger point. This is bearish as heck for AGI. If OpenAI were recursively improving their general-computer-using agent, who was going to be superhuman at every job, they wouldn't need to be messing around with things like this. ChatGPT is a useful product, which they're monetising in a well-travelled internet company way. The bad news is you're going to have ad…

$20/month product with ads, you would have to be an exec to think thats a good idea. Can they even push enough ads to ever make profit? Like the best care scenario for openAi at this point is to declare bankruptcy.

> Plus, Pro, Business, and Enterprise subscriptions will not include ads

Re: Our approach to advertising

#212

Post by rendaw »

ASalazarMX wrote: post #118
personjerry wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(In)famously, Google's motto used to be "Don't be evil" Scary to think about, if moving away from "Don't be evil" is the precedent for an "AGI company"

In a way, it's honest that they left it. Other companies wouldn't find issue in being blatantly evil while keeping the motto.

Maybe they had issues with people internally using it as justification to refuse to work on projects?

Re: Our approach to advertising

#213

Post by kajaktum »

bad_haircut72 wrote: post #7

Once they put ads in it the algorithms will optimize for engagement and time on platform, not returning useful (let alone correct) information. This works for Facebook cause Facebook is essentially entertainment, but I think this will kill ChatGPT as a useful tool.

Thats the funny part. Its not used as an informational tool

Re: Our approach to advertising

#215

Post by wat10000 »

usef- wrote: post #198
wat10000 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Including advertising in a paid product should be punishable by public flogging.

Why? It's a new tier that's lower-cost than the current paid version.

Don't care. It creeps upward. And even if it doesn't, it's terrible.

Re: Our approach to advertising

#216

Post by Timshel »

beering wrote: post #49

I think Google has already shown that in the long run, people accept ads and prefer them to paying a subscription fee. If that weren’t true, then YouTube Premium would have double-digit % of youtube users and Kagi Search would be huge.

Paying YouTube means giving even more personnal information to an ad empire ...

Re: Our approach to advertising

#217

Post by judahmeek »

rishabhaiover wrote: post #191
johannesrexx wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The [enshittification]( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enshittification ) begins. Fixed that for you, and I agree fully with that assessment.

A plea to the wise members of this community, please stop using this word. Use degradation or decay but not this.

The neologism is purposefully crude

Re: Our approach to advertising

#218

Post by thfuran »

jonplackett wrote: post #160
rpdillon wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Came here to mention this. > Ads are always separate and clearly labeled. Indeed. Let's look at Google's launch of Adwords in October 2000: > Google’s quick-loading AdWords text ads appear to the right of the Google search results and are highlighted as sponsored links, clearly separate from the search results. https://googlepress.blogspot.com/2000/10/google-launches-sel... Things evolved from there, and that's likel…

Google also famously intent Isla made their search engine _worse_ so you have to look through more results, and then see more ads. The enshitificstion begins. The only saving grace is the promise to have an ad-free tier. If something is valuable to you, paying for it to not have ads is very reasonable.

Paying to remove the ads likely doesn’t also remove all the other design decisions based on maximizing ad revenue rather than utility for users.

Re: Our approach to advertising

#219

Post by ATMLOTTOBEER »

asdff wrote: post #202
lelandbatey wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but any competitor is looking at their competition maintaining level productivity w/ 10x headcount reductions and wondering "if I use AI and the staff I have without firing them, I can provide 10x the product as the idiot cutting off their own nose over there."

More product more problems. Can you get 10x the sales? If you can't then the headcount reduction looks pretty compelling. If you can get 10x the sales, why aren't you already scaling labor?

Because the marginal profit of scaling labor is zero or negative?

Re: Our approach to advertising

#220

Post by BrenBarn »

pas wrote: post #124
BrenBarn wrote: post #104

100% bullshit. > we’re also planning to start testing ads in the U.S. for the free and Go tiers, so more people can benefit from our tools with fewer usage limits or without having to pay No, that is not why they're doing it. They're doing it to make money. > Our mission is to ensure AGI benefits all of humanity No, that is not their mission. Their mission is to make money. If they wanted to benefit all humanity they…

> make money vs more people it's the same thing for them they really want more engaged active (addicted) eyeballs, the more friction they can remove the easier it is to make this happen

The relevant part of their quote isn't "more people" it's more people benefiting. OpenAI does not care in the slightest whether people benefit. They want more people to use their product yes, but they don't care if they benefit.
Post reply on HN