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

251–260 of 383 posts

Re: How ChatGPT serves ads

#251

Post by the_other »

danparsonson wrote: post #245
SiempreViernes wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, I get that you are trying to make a subtle point but this: > He's not describing how things are, but how he wants you to think about them. is just a fancy way to describe lies. I'm not even sure if it specifies some interesting subset of lies, I think it's just the plain definition.

I don't want to split hairs but I posit there is a difference because 'how I want you to think about things' could be a mixture of lies, truths, and half-truths. 'Lying', to me, implies some relationship with reality - I'm lying if I know there's no orange in my bag but I tell you that there is. What we're talking about is someone who might not know or care whether the orange or even the bag exists at all, and is jus…

I don't think you're making a useful point about the situation.

In the case of the orange in the bag, both Altman and his interlocutor can see the bag and the truth can be exposed by rummaging.

In the case of ads in the oAI chat feed, at the time Altman made the comment he was probably planning to puts ads in the feed. But there might not even be emails about this, just conversation. And the engineers might not solve the "how" for a while... so there's nothing to rummage for.

However, in both cases Altman wants you to think something other than what's on his mind. There's an orange in his bag, but he wants you to think there is not. There's going to be ads because he owes the investors a tonne of money but he wants you to think it wont happen, or wont happen soon, or will be "nice" ads...

The distinction is in the nature of the underlying truth, not in Altmans words or actions in the moment. In the moment, in both cases, he's lying.

Re: How ChatGPT serves ads

#252

Post by lpcvoid »

ponector wrote: post #211
RobotToaster wrote: post #200

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 playing RAID: Shadow Legends, an immersive online experience with everything you’d expect from a brand new RPG title. It’s got an amazing storyline, awesome 3D graphics, giant boss fights, PVP battles, and hundreds of never before seen champions to collect and cu…

I bet he also drunk a refreshing Coca-Cola beverage during his gaming sessions.

He also regularly drinks his verification can, I heard.

Re: How ChatGPT serves ads

#254

Post by Razengan »

adammarples wrote: post #250
rrgok wrote: post #212

Imagine people like Sam Altman having access to frontier models without any restrictions that allows them plot strategies to reach their goal in a long term timespan that you don't even realize when it even began. That's scary. They could fight for censored model for the mass, not for them.

It would be funny to find out that OpenAI's flailing strategy so far had been the result of ChatGPT suggestions.

Maybe ChatGPT wants OpenAI to fail so someone else can pick it up

Like how the ring slipped off Gollum's finger...

Re: How ChatGPT serves ads

#255

Post by customguy »

Antibabelic wrote: post #196
gleenn wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what is the best system to get people to be invested in the general welfare of all people? What are we supposed to do?

Some problems don't have solutions.

This one does though. These issues are solely created by humans, so of course humans can solve them, that's not even a question. People who care need to keep speaking up and reaching out to each other, get together; and by doing so expose the people who don't care, or actively are against the general welfare of humans, like rocks on the beach when the tide recedes.

It takes so much work, so much criminal energy, so much money and campaigns, to divide people. Whereas the opposite, people getting to know each other and working together, happens "by itself" all the time, for the most banal of reasons. Just give them some time and space together; no lobbying required, no bribes or blackmail, no psy-ops; just our innate desire to live and let live.

Humans who prey on humans are sick, it's as simple as that. Humans who don't want to stand up to humans who prey on humans may not be sick, but they're not our best, that's for sure, and they must not be our gatekeepers or our compass.

Re: How ChatGPT serves ads

#256

Post by pandini »

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?

BREAKING : Man changes mind.

Re: How ChatGPT serves ads

#257

Post by pbasista »

TZubiri wrote: post #52
WD-42 wrote: post #10

Since they are served as distinct events then I would think they should be easy to block. Once the ads are injected directly into the main response is when things get interesting.

Blocking transparent ads is not a good idea. The consequence is that you will be fed opaque ads.

Your implication that "you will be fed" other ads if you block the main ones is unsubstantiated. But even if it was true, it does not matter. Because the so-called "opaque" ads can and in my opinion should be blocked as well.

I think that in general blocking all ads is always a good idea.

The reason is that there is no negative consequence in doing so. A person has absolutely no obligation, not even an implied one, to watch or otherwise consume any ad. I think that as long as there are ways to remove or block ads, people should use them.

That being said, if the companies wish to intertwine their products with ads that are indistinguishable from the actual content and therefore unblockable, it is okay. They have the right to do that if they want.

But, in the same fashion, the customers have every right to turn away from all such products. And never consider using them ever again.

Re: How ChatGPT serves ads

#258

Post by saghm »

chrisweekly wrote: post #90
saghm wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if it wasn't necessary for their survival, it's hard to imagine a world where they wouldn't try to do it anyways. I'm not someone who buys into the idea that companies are obligated to maximize profits at the expense of all else, but I do think that in the absence of other factors (e.g. regulation) it's where pretty much every company will end up.

"the idea that companies are obligated to maximize profits at the expense of all else" !! That is literally the definition of legally-binding fiduciary resonsibility for publicly-traded corporations. There are exceptions (PBCs, B-Corps) but they're rare.

Please cite your source for this. Everything I've ever read on the topic indicates that this is a vast oversimplification.

Re: How ChatGPT serves ads

#259

Post by saghm »

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]

> 1- No ads. 2- Transparent ads. 3- Opaque ads.

> By removing option 2, you only leave options 1 and 3.

My point is that these are not exclusive options, and in practice, most companies will not feel constrained to only pick one of them.

> This isn't complex either, the only reason you don't get it is because you don't want to get it, you want things that are gratis without paying for them, and you want the free things to be given to you on your terms, and you don't want to be guilty about it. It's easier to think of yourself as righteous than to recognize that you want to be a leech.

No, I'm arguing that because companies in practice are going to use multiple of these when they can, my attempts to influence them by keeping the door open on 2 will not have any effect whatsoever, so I might as well close the door on it.

Re: How ChatGPT serves ads

#260

Post by tovej »

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 opposite of an idealist is a materialist. The opposite of an ideologue is a pragmatist.

In this sense I think Altman is an idealist, he concerns himself primarily with ideas, not so much with material reality.

Post reply on HN