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

231–240 of 252 posts

Re: Our approach to advertising

#231

Post by tim333 »

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.

Don't be evil is still in The Google Code of Conduct. It ends:

>And remember... don’t be evil, and if you see something that you think isn’t right – speak up!

(https://abc.xyz/investor/board-and-governance/google-code-of...)

It's just no longer the main motto.

Apparently it was thought to be inspired by the Microsoft antitrust case which was going on at the time as in don't be like that.

Re: Our approach to advertising

#232

Post by tomasphan »

terminalbraid wrote: post #125
Aboutplants wrote: post #111

Wonder how long it will take someone to find a prompt to get rid of ads? Im guessing less than 3 days

You say that like the LLM must be built and retrained on ads rather than a separate scan of the prompt

Yes but there could be negative key words that no advertiser wants to associate with.

Re: Our approach to advertising

#233

Post by wizzwizz4 »

charcircuit wrote: post #183
neumann wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Approach it from the other angle - what scenario would it be bad in. It's not hard to see very real possibilities in the short term where it does matter: A 16yro looks up on chatGPT how she can check discreetly whether she is pregnant or not and what potential avenues she has. The advertiser could literally by anyone targeting pregnancies, including government or action groups who now have some information about that…

You don't need ChatGPT to know that someone buying a pregnancy kit from you has an above average chance to be pregnant.

Who said they had to buy it to leak the information?

Re: Our approach to advertising

#235

Post by array_key_first »

RobotToaster wrote: post #14

Can't wait for it to start telling people that Abraham Lincoln's favourite game was raid shadow legends.

Abraham Lincoln was the 16th president of the United States of America. He was best known for being "Honest Abe", writing the Emancipation Proclamation, and his affinity for wearing Raycon© Ear Buds. He loved them for their 6 hours of playtime, seamless Bluetooth pairing, bass, availability in multiple colors, and their compact design that helps get rid of background noise.

Re: Our approach to advertising

#236

Post by justsid »

guelo wrote: post #116
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.

YouTube premium being $14 a month is a scam. I very much doubt that they earn $14/month out of my ad viewing.

As a youtube premium subscriber I don’t care if youtube earns more money this way than via ads. I simply don’t want to see ads.

Re: Our approach to advertising

#237

Post by Kye »

qingcharles wrote: post #112
satvikpendem wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, Google Ads are still clearly separated and are labeled as such (there's even a "hide sponsored results" button. Not sure why people even click on the ads when the actual result is right below but that's not usually me.

This is not how most users perceive it. To us techies, sure. Whenever I watch any regular person using Google though they invariably always click whatever the top result is (usually sponsored) and don't see any distinction.

Occasionally I have to help someone find something through Google. The hardest part is getting them to not impulsively click the first link, which is invariably an ad instead of the right thing. The second hardest is helping then navigate back to the search results. The third, of course, is stopping them from clicking the second link. Also an ad for the wrong thing.

I stopped trying to help people with computer stuff unless I can take over and trust them to not blame me when some random, unrelated thing breaks down the line.

Re: Our approach to advertising

#238

Post by Kye »

satvikpendem wrote: post #109
wredcoll wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? At least half the time the real results are below "the fold" for me.

Depends on your screen size. Regardless lots of people scroll down anyway since they've been trained to by ads. https://i.imgur.com/JvEsDpH.png

Do they? I haven't seen any research. My non-scientific experience watching people use Google tells me they mostly cycle through the ads at the top until they get to the right thing, or forget what they were doing and follow the first advertiser's funnel.

Re: Our approach to advertising

#239

Post by asdff »

dragonwriter wrote: post #208
asdff wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't need AGI to fire you or not make jobs you would have taken. All these pro ai devs on here talking about 10x productivity gains in their own work like management isn't looking at those claims and thinking about a 10x reduction in headcount.

Increased productivity increases the value of work and the number of areas it is useful to apply it. Yes, if you are working for a non-growth firm with basically fixed sales, a productivity increase translates to a headcount decrease in that firm , but across the industry it means more jobs at higher pay, as shown by the whole history of productivity improvements in software development.

Increased productivity requires demand to make use of it. And if there was untapped demand on the table already, it would have been eaten already through labor gains even if productivity didn’t shift.

Re: Our approach to advertising

#240

Post by asdff »

ATMLOTTOBEER wrote: post #219
asdff wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Workers typically bring in more revenue than they are paid otherwise they wouldn’t be hired.
Post reply on HN