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

541–550 of 552 posts

Re: Predicting OpenAI's ad strategy

#541

Post by johnnienaked »

nindalf wrote: post #531
johnnienaked wrote: post #523

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All these hyperscalers do is control the internet and suck money from companies that actually add value via that control. I can name on one hand the amount of successful products GOOGLE has natively launched (without acquisition). This predatory behavior has the opposite effect on the economy you're claiming here.

Is there RoI for this advertising spend or isn't there? If there is, what are we talking about here? If there isn't, then why would people spend on something not giving a positive RoI?

We're talking about it because quantifiable variables aren't the only aspects of reality that matter. If a company does something profitable but it makes everyone but them worse off, there's an argument they shouldn't be allowed to do it.

Re: Predicting OpenAI's ad strategy

#542

Post by csense »

gruez wrote: post #241
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…

>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)... That's a nice story to tell, but the economics never works out if you do the math. Whatever extra wages you pay, you only get a fraction of that back in increased sales. How much percent of a worker's income do you think is spent on a car? As…

If you're a market leader it might make sense to use your influence to try pushing the whole market against the per-firm incentive gradient to a better equilibrium. Factors that help:

- You're an early player using new technology so you have profits to spare

- You're in a capital intensive business so salaries are a relatively small portion of your expenses

- You have a celebrity CEO so investors give them more of a "pass" for visionary ideas that go against conventional wisdom

I'm not an expert on the history of the US auto industry but my gut feeling is that all of these applied to Henry Ford's Ford.

Re: Predicting OpenAI's ad strategy

#543

Post by [deleted] »

9rx wrote: post #529
antisthenes wrote: post #527

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And no doubt there are a bunch of other definitions that aren't so popular, so the parent commenter could even be using one of those. It might even be his own pet definition that he just made up on the spot right now. This is an absolutely insane take if you want to be taken seriously in a conversation. Making up definitions on the spot and "getting to choose what a word means" is deliberately acting in bad faith.…

> Making up definitions on the spot and "getting to choose what a word means" is deliberately acting in bad faith. Not quite. Not taking the time to understand what someone means when they use a word is acting in bad faith. Using a word as you understand it, even if that does not match how others understand it, before the word is contextually defined cannot be in bad faith. Nobody can read minds. It is impossible for…

[deleted]

Re: Predicting OpenAI's ad strategy

#544

Post by phailhaus »

dr_kretyn wrote: post #528
phailhaus wrote: post #310

I do not understand why this is a big deal. There is no world in which ads are embedded in LLM answers, because you'd need another LLM to determine whether the "placement" was correct and included all the information that the advertiser wanted (and it still won't work 100%). They are putting ads on the side, like they've always done, leveraging all the tech that already exists to do this. This is pretty much a no-bra…

Why is this a problem? You don't need an LLM; you need a "model for detecting whether and where the given context appears". We're so used to LLMs now that we forget these NLPs problems have been worked on for a long time and they don't require a huge computational beast and it takes a few ms to run (on only the response, while it's being streamed).

That's a no-go for advertisers. They need to control their own brand and their image, there're not going to leave it up to chance like "ok so uh just mention us or something and then we'll pay you." They pay for very specific placements, and they need to provide the content.

Re: Predicting OpenAI's ad strategy

#545

Post by barbazoo »

Quarrelsome wrote: post #403
mx20 wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generate an Answer, get the winning Ad from an API, let another AI rewrite the Answer in a easy that the Answer at least be not contradicting to the Ad. I think someone should create a leaderboard that measures how much the AI is lying to us to sell more ads.

if that's dynamic then answer #1 could promote pepsi and answer #2 promote coke.

The first one might be grounded on what reddit was saying about which cola is best and what the general sentiment is etc. Then the second one either emphasizes the fact that reddit favoured cola x or not depending on where the money is coming from.

We do this when using LLM in our apps too in much less sinister ways. One LLM generates an answer and another applies guardrails against certain situations the company considers desirable.

Re: Predicting OpenAI's ad strategy

#546

Post by ElFitz »

account42 wrote: post #518
ElFitz wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even a sign on the street is basically an ad. That plastic cow or pig head telling you there’s a butcher or cheesemonger? It’s basically an ad. Possibly one of the oldest type too!

So? What argument are you trying to make? We can ban what most people consider ads while still letting reasonable store signs stay if we want to.

> So? What argument are you trying to make?

That, as the comment I was replying to said, ads are indeed everywhere, sometimes hidden in plain sight.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Re: Predicting OpenAI's ad strategy

#547

Post by ElFitz »

fsflover wrote: post #495
ElFitz wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even a sign on the street is basically an ad. That plastic cow or pig head telling you there’s a butcher or cheesemonger? It’s basically an ad. Possibly one of the oldest type too!

Sings on the owners' houses aren't paid ads.

Parent wasn’t referring specifically to paid ads, just ads in general, and their omnipresence.

And to your point: shops rarely own the building they’re on the ground floor of.

Re: Predicting OpenAI's ad strategy

#548

Post by uoaei »

deaux wrote: post #441
uoaei wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand what compels you to continue down this line of thought when its obvious flaws have been so clearly elaborated by other commenters.

I think you are more than capable of understanding what compels them, it's just not a very fun conclusion and one you'd rather not draw.

<3

Re: Predicting OpenAI's ad strategy

#549

Post by sooheon »

malfist wrote: post #202
sooheon wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is misuse of language. Rent seeking is anti-competitive by definition. The current system, as far as it encourages and rewards rent seeking, is anti-capitalist.

Anticompetitive behavior is completely within lines for capitalism. Survival of the fittest and efficient marketplace and all that. Besides, what's the other option, rent seeking is socialism? A barter system?

> Survival of the fittest and efficient marketplace

Rent seeking is an Econ 101 example of market inefficiency.

> what's the other option, rent seeking is socialism?

Rent seeking is rent seeking. It is a form of corruption, via regulatory capture. It is a way in which any political system can fail, not limited to an ideology like "socialism" or "capitalism".

Re: Predicting OpenAI's ad strategy

#550

Post by sooheon »

FridgeSeal wrote: post #417
sooheon wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is misuse of language. Rent seeking is anti-competitive by definition. The current system, as far as it encourages and rewards rent seeking, is anti-capitalist.

Getting into a position where you can tilt the playing field exclusively in your benefit is 100% the logical outcome of for-profit companies in capitalism. It’s so transparently and frequently stated outright, that building companies geared around achieving that has become the norm: it is the fundamental business-model of _every_ _single_ unicorn startup, or the company that buys them. Launch, squeeze out competitors…

Using power to tilt the playing field is the logical outcome of all political systems, not just capitalism.

> capture the market, and become the sole dominant force in that market and use your position to then pull up the ladder behind you and cement your position

This is worth discussing in detail. Becoming dominant by providing a better thing, or investing more capital, is not tilting the playing field, it's winning the game. Getting government protected monopolies, special tax write-offs, subsidies, exclusive grants is. Uber and Facebook are not anticompetitive just because they are dominant, they are anticompetitive to the extent that they specifically use their dominance to influence politics.

Post reply on HN