371–380 of 383 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
You're assuming 2 and 3 are mutually exclusive. Even if they have 2, they can still make even more money by also including 3, so almost certainly will do so.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[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 contr…
Presumably you wouldn't even want to use the service since it's so evil, so we probably agree that people ideally shouldn't use adblockers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Blocking transparent ads is not a good idea. The consequence is that you will be fed opaque ads.
I’m not obligated to look at or listen to anything on my own devices, much less in my own home.
Works out for everyone, no?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
when did netflix offer a free tier?
I didn't say free. They've had a highly discounted, ad-supported plan for a few years now. It's relevant because OpenAI also introduced a cheaper monthly plan that includes ads.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m not obligated to look at or listen to anything on my own devices, much less in my own home.
Right, and you are not obligated to use ChatGPT either. And ChatGPT is not obligated to serve you if you bypass their ToS. Works out for everyone, no?
In fact I’d be better off. It’s interesting that the most ad laden products are often the worst for you: YouTube, social media. Whereas the good uses of time: books, art, are ad free.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is something I’ve long believed to be true and important to understand, yet rarely see anybody else argue, so it makes me happy to read. I think of it like the kissing noise we make to make a pet come. You could call it the truth or a lie depending on what the pet is expecting and whether you then do it, but both judgements miss what actually happened: it didn’t even occur to us to think about whether it’s “true…
There is a thin layer of high functioning sociopath at the top of all human social structures. Never trust anyone who wants to lead at that level. You have more in common with a colossal squid at the bottom of the deepest trench than you do with that kind of human.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>It's easy to say that without having gone through those experiences (either as a soldier or as a CEO). I'm not sure what part of what I said is even remotely controversial. We see it literally every time the guardrails of society are relaxed and the typical social contract breaks down. We are, as a species, riding the ragged edge of shit-slinging simian collapse. Humans were designed to exist in tribes of between 7…
Ah, reading it again, I realize I misunderstood your meaning. Disregard my previous response to that sentence. Let me try that again: >There are, in fact, a substantial proportion of us that aren't doing horrible things because they are comfortable enough that risking that comfort is worse than what they would gain. That sounds like you're saying that most people don't "do horrible things" out of a utilitarian calcul…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes but they would only need enough to keep the lights on and pay the engineers. When you're a for-profit company, especially a public one (which I believe they're looking to be soon), you can't just maintain homeostasis. Your investors want growth every quarter. Conceivably if they stayed non-profit then they could charge just enough to maintain the project, and they wouldn't necessarily have to have ads.
The lights being billions in hardware and plant investment, possibly power generation and operations and maintenance, attracting and retaining top 0.01% of engineers. In addition if you don't keep up with SOTA +/- 10% you instantly lose all customers. There is zero stickiness.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cable TV was once ad free. So was Netflix. Companies just can’t help themselves.
Netflix is still ad free for the right price. It's not like companies have some fetish for advertising specifically, it's that it brings in money. Often more money than a user would be willing to pay for the service.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're assuming 2 and 3 are mutually exclusive. Even if they have 2, they can still make even more money by also including 3, so almost certainly will do so.
Not necessarily mutually exclusive no, mathematically I'd say they are inversely proportional, hard to disagree with that no?