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

Predicting OpenAI's ad strategy

ossa-ma.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

501–510 of 552 posts

Re: Predicting OpenAI's ad strategy

#501

Post by prmoustache »

fsflover wrote: post #303
prmoustache wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am all for it but it would be hard to enforce. Ads are already hidden everywhere. Someone "review" a product? Most of the time it is a hidden ad even if the reviewer hasn't been paid with money for that. Watches a movie or a video clip? A lots of products are advertised through close ups on the logos, etc.

If there is a payment, there is a good chance to track it.

Youtubers happily do "reviews" in exchange of receiving stuff, regardless if they can keep it or not. They also know that if they are too critical they may not receive anything more and they don't have any material to review. This was already true on paper magazines.

No money is exchanged in the process.

Re: Predicting OpenAI's ad strategy

#502

Post by afpx »

csense wrote: post #209
bearjaws wrote: post #62

There is something to be said about the state of advertising. Increasingly it seems you must go to the almighty Google or Meta in order to launch any business. We're looking to expand into a new business line and have out grown our pharmacy capacity. The new business line will cost about $2M in software dev, and $3M for the new facility. The advertising budget? $40,000,000 (annual). We can build 10 robotic pharmacies…

Advertising spend being too high is a symptom of a supply glut. Too many products in the marketplace, not enough consumers to buy them. In a different world where there are higher wages, more people would have more spending power. Then companies wouldn't have to spend as many dollars on advertising, which they could split between higher wages, higher margins and lower prices. Alas, the short-term single-firm directio…

My problem with buying stuff is that by the age of 40 I had already attained everything that I ever needed or wanted except for a occasional replacement.

Personally, I don't need more products, but there are many services I would pay for if they existed. But, apparently companies don't seem to care about providing services. Why? Is it because they don't scale?

Re: Predicting OpenAI's ad strategy

#503

Post by lelanthran »

woeirua wrote: post #79
techblueberry wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Have you tried the new models, bro?”

I’m convinced that there will be people declaring that this isn’t AGI all the way up to the moment that they become permanently unemployed.

> I’m convinced that there will be people declaring that this isn’t AGI all the way up to the moment that they become permanently unemployed.

Won't you be permanently unemployed along with them?

If AGI comes through, both the boosters and the skeptics can continue their arguments in the soup kitchen.

Re: Predicting OpenAI's ad strategy

#504

Post by lufenialif2 »

afpx wrote: post #502
csense wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Advertising spend being too high is a symptom of a supply glut. Too many products in the marketplace, not enough consumers to buy them. In a different world where there are higher wages, more people would have more spending power. Then companies wouldn't have to spend as many dollars on advertising, which they could split between higher wages, higher margins and lower prices. Alas, the short-term single-firm directio…

My problem with buying stuff is that by the age of 40 I had already attained everything that I ever needed or wanted except for a occasional replacement. Personally, I don't need more products, but there are many services I would pay for if they existed. But, apparently companies don't seem to care about providing services. Why? Is it because they don't scale?

What kinds of services would you pay for that don’t already exist?

Re: Predicting OpenAI's ad strategy

#505

Post by Imustaskforhelp »

csense wrote: post #209
bearjaws wrote: post #62

There is something to be said about the state of advertising. Increasingly it seems you must go to the almighty Google or Meta in order to launch any business. We're looking to expand into a new business line and have out grown our pharmacy capacity. The new business line will cost about $2M in software dev, and $3M for the new facility. The advertising budget? $40,000,000 (annual). We can build 10 robotic pharmacies…

Advertising spend being too high is a symptom of a supply glut. Too many products in the marketplace, not enough consumers to buy them. In a different world where there are higher wages, more people would have more spending power. Then companies wouldn't have to spend as many dollars on advertising, which they could split between higher wages, higher margins and lower prices. Alas, the short-term single-firm directio…

Am I seeing a fellow georgist in the wild? That's great!

I do agree that these monopolies are rent seeking and we should probably do something about it

> Maybe Henry Ford was on to something when he shocked the world by paying his employees enough to afford the product they were making (more than doubling many workers' wages)...

This reminds me of this too https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvHwyrem24M (CEO who gave all his employees minimum $70,000 paycheck thriving six years later)

Everyone bet that they would fold but they are doing stronger than ever. People took voluntary pay cuts when the company was under pressure and they even gifted their CEO their favourite car out of their own geneorsity!

I always smile when I watch this video. (the company's gravity payments)

> The class conflict shouldn't be between workers and employers

I feel like the problem's becoming that the employers are themselves rent seekers (so think working at google,facebook,twitter) or the VC companies which want to build more Google's and facebooks and twitters but not companies like the one that I mentioned in the video

Re: Predicting OpenAI's ad strategy

#506

Post by Forgeties79 »

dyauspitr wrote: post #452
yoyohello13 wrote: post #187

The ad based business model is the most destructive technology of the new millennium. The whole point of advertising, to make people feel unsatisfied with their current life. The current state of the world makes perfect sense when you think of the last 20 years we've been cultivating fear, and dissatisfaction among the populace. All in the hopes of selling 0.1% more widgets.

Ads are what capitalism runs on. It would be next to impossible for a new business to get off the ground without ads.

Capitalism is also supposedly the ultimate system for innovation and the best idea is supposedly going to rise to the top based on merit/the marketplace. And let’s not get nitpicky about this: yes putting a sign out front is “advertising.” 99.99% of people are fine with that. But that is clearly not what people are talking about. We are talking about a massive industry that is not about simply getting the word out. It’s way more complex, sophisticated, and hostile than that.

If there were restrictions on advertising that applied to everyone, then everyone would be on the same playing field re: getting the word out. We could argue all day about what the rules should be, but I don’t think anyone could argue against the point that we have clearly gone too far in the wrong direction and need more restrictions currently. We have an ongoing arms race between people using adblockers and Google trying to mass-break them now.

Last I looked in to the numbers I think something like 30% of the US population uses an ad blocker of some sort, that’s how bad it’s gotten. Browsing the Internet without even a basic one is so unbelievably painful and the data they collect/sell has gotten out of control. That’s not “advertising the business,” that’s a second revenue stream unrelated to the core product and done at my expense.

Re: Predicting OpenAI's ad strategy

#507

Post by rkagerer »

It's also possible people finally become SICK of seeing ads and there's a cultural shift boycotting products incorporating them. I would love to see this.

There's a difference between advertising - which tends to be offensive, stealing your attention from the task you're trying to accomplish - and an agent that actually helps you with the intended task (as in travel agent, real estate agent, etc). In my opinion the future of revenue for the richest companies is the latter, we just have yet to see anyone unlock it at true scale.

My non-tech spouse is excited about AI because she wants what amounts to a personal, universal EA that can help her with anything. If your executive assistant just kept squawking ads at you all day long you'd fire them.

Re: Predicting OpenAI's ad strategy

#508

Post by cyber_kinetist »

csense wrote: post #209
bearjaws wrote: post #62

There is something to be said about the state of advertising. Increasingly it seems you must go to the almighty Google or Meta in order to launch any business. We're looking to expand into a new business line and have out grown our pharmacy capacity. The new business line will cost about $2M in software dev, and $3M for the new facility. The advertising budget? $40,000,000 (annual). We can build 10 robotic pharmacies…

Advertising spend being too high is a symptom of a supply glut. Too many products in the marketplace, not enough consumers to buy them. In a different world where there are higher wages, more people would have more spending power. Then companies wouldn't have to spend as many dollars on advertising, which they could split between higher wages, higher margins and lower prices. Alas, the short-term single-firm directio…

A Marxist can certainly also be a Georgist, it's a matter between who should we eliminate first: the capitalists or the rent-seekers. Maybe we should eliminate the latter first in order to be able to properly tackle the former: the real class conflict between the proletariat and the bourgeois!

But you can also go a bit more extreme (and less orthodox) and say that classical capitalism has already come to an end, and in the current neoliberal era most of the purported "capitalists" are actually just rent-seekers (platform based companies which run either on ads or monthly payments) - you don't sell commodities anymore and instead just access to services. Maybe these are just a symptom of The Tendency of the Rate of Profit to Fall - where the value of labor itself has fallen so much that there is no way for any capitalist production to continue generating acceptable profits unless you do any rent-seeking behavior. In that sense, you can certainly be both a Georgist and a Marxist since you still believe in the TRPF and the inherent contradictions of capitalism (though quite an unorthodox one!)

Re: Predicting OpenAI's ad strategy

#509

Post by Forgeties79 »

KellyCriterion wrote: post #31
loloquwowndueo wrote: post #10

> Look on the bright side, if they're turning to ads it likely means AGI is not on the horizon. Your job is safe! I like this quote from TFA :)

I stumbled upon this one as well, but I do not understand it really: Why is my job safe if Ads prove there is no AGI? Because even if there would be AGI, they could (and would?) serve ads anyway?

If AGI or something truly amazingly novel and useful for the market was about to get here, that’d be an unbelievable about of cash on the horizon. The promises they’ve made, it even half met, would be revolutionary. Ad placement means the business likely needs ads to work because the product isn’t near what they have been promising and won’t generate the revenue (at least not on its own) that investors have been promised because the hype was way too big.

Re: Predicting OpenAI's ad strategy

#510

Post by aniviacat »

skeltoac wrote: post #438
aniviacat wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are you worried will happen? ChatGPT releases and noone will know? Anyone interested in staying up to date with new technology can read a tech newspaper. That newspaper is paid by the readers, so its incentive is to show actually interesting products. It is not paid by some random company whose product might be bad or outright malicious.

Depends on what exactly gets banned. What is an ad? What isn’t? Must all information be paid for by the audience? I wish someone would tell me what this ban is supposed to cover. I worry that innovators and small businesses won’t be able to get their message out efficiently. You won’t be able to display your message on anyone else’s property. You won’t be able to take any compensation for promoting anything.

> What is an ad? What isn’t?

Anything wie usually consider an ad/sponsored content/boosted content. That includes ad banners, video sponsors, boosted posts, billboards, etc. Really any way that a third party pays some organization to put certain content on their space (be it physical or digital) to be seen by people who are probably there for other reasons than to see that content.

An exact definition fortunately isn't necessary, since our legal system is well adapted to deal with terms that are difficult to define.

> Must all information be paid for by the audience?

Other monetization paths are still possible. E.g. some SaaS orgs could still run blogs to gain mind share, as they do now.

Hopefully most information will be paid for by the audience though.

> I worry that innovators and small businesses won’t be able to get their message out efficiently.

If ads are no longer a thing, people will find other means to get information.

You mentioned in another comment that you like ads in newspapers telling you about some local stores and events. If the readers are genuinely interested in this, the newspaper can still put that information there. Just instead of the highest bidder, they'll put the ones that are genuinely interesting.

Of course, if your product is not worth reading about, it will suddenly be much more difficult to promote it. In my opinion, that is a good thing.

Post reply on HN