71–80 of 296 posts
>Additionally, members of the program receive priority placement and “richer brand expression” in chat conversations, and their content benefits from more prominent link treatments. Finally, through PPP, OpenAI also offers licensed financial terms to publishers. This is what a lot of people pushing for open models fear - responses of commercial models will be biased based on marketing spend.
"You should Snap into a Slim Jim!"
So wait, there will be ads in your ChatGPT conversation, you just won't know they are ads?
- Listing Sources + Sponsonsed Sources
- Sponsored short answer following the primary one
- Sponsored embedded statements/links within the answer
- Trailing or opening sponsorships
The cognitive intent bridge between the user and brands that is possible with this technology will blow Google out of the water IMO.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A llm is biased by design, the "open models" are no different here. OpenAI will, like any other model designer, pick and chose whatever data they want in their model and strike deals to that end. The only question is in how far this is can be viewed as ads. Here I would find a strong backslash slightly ironic, since a lot of people have called the non-consensual incorporation of openly available data problematic; thi…
> A llm is biased by design I don’t think some bias is inherently in models is in any way comparable to a pay to play marketing angle
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With publishers' brands. This is not about getting Burger King ads in your ChatGPT responses, it's about getting NYT and Ars Technica's content into (and linked from) ChatGPT responses.
That’s a very fine distinction you are making. What happens when we get to the point where we are asking ChatGPT where to get a quick burger? Or even how to make a hamburger?
There's no way this doesn't backfire. OpenAI has no moat, so making the bot/api a shill just means people are going to use something else. GPT5 would have to be an order of magnitude better on the price/performance scale for me to even get close to this.
Let me test this hypothesis. I run a small business that pays for Google workspace. I pay for a ChatGPT subscription and use it daily as a coding copilot. Is there any reason I shouldn’t switch to Gemini and cancel ChatGPT? If no reason, I’ll try it this afternoon.
> "its purpose is to help ChatGPT users more easily discover and engage with publishers’ brands and content." What end user actually wants this? I've never in my life woke up and said, "You know what, I'd love to 'engage' with a corporate brand today!" or "I would love help to easily discover Burger King's content, that would be great!" The euphemisms they use for 'spam' are just breathtaking.
>Additionally, members of the program receive priority placement and “richer brand expression” in chat conversations, and their content benefits from more prominent link treatments. Finally, through PPP, OpenAI also offers licensed financial terms to publishers. This is what a lot of people pushing for open models fear - responses of commercial models will be biased based on marketing spend.
It’s amazing how fast OpenAI succumbed to the siren’s song of surveillance capitalism.