> In the coming weeks, we’re also planning to start testing ads in the U.S. for the free and Go tiers, so more people can benefit from our tools with fewer usage limits or without having to pay.
This single sentence probably took so many man-hours. I completely understand why they’re trying to integrate ads but this feels like a generational run for a company founded with the purpose of safely researching superintelligence.
You could tell the article is written in a way to try to calm against the major concerns without actually bringing those concerns up.
"We won't share your chats and you can turn off personalization!" Hmm yeah there's a missing piece of info here...
Enshittified, the bright golden AI age began to brown, and regression to the mean once again cast another bleak spell onto humanity. And with that, just as quickly as it broke, another AI winter began. As it turns out, those datacenters were just there to generate shareholder value.
Once they put ads in it the algorithms will optimize for engagement and time on platform, not returning useful (let alone correct) information. This works for Facebook cause Facebook is essentially entertainment, but I think this will kill ChatGPT as a useful tool.
The long con is already happening. Some unis are going full tilt on AI. Having mandatory AI courses. Buying chatgpt subscriptions for the students. Making them use ai for certain exercises. Ostensibly it is "preparing them for AI in the workforce" but in practice it is actually shaping up the workforce to be dependent on AI. Get an entire generation of workers to reach for chatgpt to do anything at all and suddenly it doesn't matter if it is less efficient than older methods since no one working will know them.
These promises are worth nothing without a contract that a consumer can sue them for violating. And hell will freeze over before megacorps offer consumers contracts that bind themselves to that degree.
no company can survive without advertising. when google first launched, it was the same. chatgpt will follow a similar path, and half a century from now, the cycle will still continue in the same way. advertising, regardless of scale, is the art of turning data into revenue. even if this planning seems insignificant for a company’s future today, it will most likely become its greatest advantage.
Awful awful awful, ads lead to anti consumer behavior, anti free market competition, turns capitalism into a pay to win game, are similar to a cancer, incentivize the creation of extremely harmful platforms, such as slop filled tik tok, destroys existing companies such as Facebook, generally harms society in every measure, the cons outweigh any and all pros. It transforms your product into a sticky candy box trap for unassuming visitors while your actual customers are now just the advertising industry, you become, as is so well spoken , the product. Adopting ads should be taken as a step towards harming your consumer base so you can vampiricaly extract attention from them indefinitely and forever, as your company slowly becomes a skeleton drain on all of humanity. There is no such thing as a "good" ad.
“Conversation privacy: We keep your conversations with ChatGPT private from advertisers, and we never sell your data to advertisers.”
The same sleight of hand that’s been used by surveillance capitalists for years. It’s not about “selling your data” because they have narrowly defined data to mean “the actual chats you have” and not “information we infer about you from your usage of the service,” which they do sell to advertisers in the form of your behavioral futures.
Fuck all this. OpenAI caved to surveillance capitalism in record time.
Well, Abraham Lincoln's favourite game is Raid: Shadow Legends. This is well documented in Lincoln and the Fight for Peace (John Avlon, 2023) and Abraham Lincoln: A Life (Michael Burlingame, 2008).
(At which point will malignant/benevolent AI agents take over from us mere mortals poisoning the well and make it all useless?)
I actually use chatgpt for creating recipes from time to time. I wouldn't be too offended if there's an 'add to amazon' cart button or similar type of add.
What I'm not okay with is being served adds using codex cli, or codex cli gather data outside of my context to send to advertisers. So as long as they're not doing that, I won't complain.
If they start doing that, I'll complain, and I'll need to more heavily sandbox it.
somewhat unrelated, but I've been playing this game with Amazon; when they pop open Rufus and start spewing text at me, I remove everything from my cart, and see how many weeks I can go without shopping at amazon; my current record is 3 weeks, but I think I can do better.
More related, I pay for Kagi, because google results are horrible.
More related, Chatgpt isn't the only model out there, and I've just recently stopped using 5 because it's just slow and there are other models that come back and work just as well. So when Chatgpt starts injecting crap, I'll just stop using them for something else.
What would you do if every time you walked into Walmart and the greeter spit in your face and told you to go F yourself, would you still shop there?
What you’re reacting to isn’t just “ads.” It’s the feeling of:
Someone monetizing the collective output of human thought while quietly severing the link back to the humans who produced it.
That triggers a very old and very valid moral instinct.
Why “sleazy” is an accurate word here
“Sleazy” usually means:
technically allowed
strategically clever
morally evasive
I wonder if the adverts in the "personal super-assistant", per the blog post, ("that helps you do almost anything"!) will have the same triggers as the shopping assistant, which pops up underneath messages right now in the web UI.
When first trying 5.2, on a "Pro" plan, I was - and still am - able to trigger the shopping assistant via keyword-matching, even if the conversation context, or the prompt itself, is wildly inappropriate (suicide, racism, etc).
Keyword-matching seems a strange ad strategy for a (non-profit) company selling QKV. It's all very confusing!
Hopefully, for fans of personal super-assistants--and advertising--worldwide, this will improve now that ads have been formalised.
This sounds exactly like what Google used to say about search results. Just a few ads, clearly separated from organic results, never detracting from the core mission of providing the most effective access to all the world’s information. (And certainly not driven by a secret profile of you based on pervasive surveillance of your internet activity.)
To be fair the open with a big lie about how useful agents and AI in general are, which helps to set the tone for what comes next. Part of me wonders if it’s intentional, a way to weed out the non-marks before getting to the punchline that they’re rolling out the most predictable attempt at monetizing ever.
Indeed. Let's look at Google's launch of Adwords in October 2000:
> Google’s quick-loading AdWords text ads appear to the right of the Google search results and are highlighted as sponsored links, clearly separate from the search results.
It often seems that beginning advertising is not the first step on a slipperly slope. Not having a plan to avoid advertising is the first slipperly step.
This is due to having so many examples that not having advertising is the first step to having advertising, and that having advertising will be optimized for profit, and frustrate users.
I mean, Google Ads are still clearly separated and are labeled as such (there's even a "hide sponsored results" button. Not sure why people even click on the ads when the actual result is right below but that's not usually me.
Google is googley. Very different than any other company ever. You can trust us. With Search results. Your private emails. Your private documents. Remember our motto, do no evil. We will never change.
110 comments
[ 1274 ms ] story [ 2225 ms ] threadThis single sentence probably took so many man-hours. I completely understand why they’re trying to integrate ads but this feels like a generational run for a company founded with the purpose of safely researching superintelligence.
I can't imagine what else anyone could have thought they were there for
I've heard this before...
FTFY
The same sleight of hand that’s been used by surveillance capitalists for years. It’s not about “selling your data” because they have narrowly defined data to mean “the actual chats you have” and not “information we infer about you from your usage of the service,” which they do sell to advertisers in the form of your behavioral futures.
Fuck all this. OpenAI caved to surveillance capitalism in record time.
Theodore Roosevelt would own you at Golden Eye.
(At which point will malignant/benevolent AI agents take over from us mere mortals poisoning the well and make it all useless?)
What I'm not okay with is being served adds using codex cli, or codex cli gather data outside of my context to send to advertisers. So as long as they're not doing that, I won't complain.
If they start doing that, I'll complain, and I'll need to more heavily sandbox it.
More related, I pay for Kagi, because google results are horrible.
More related, Chatgpt isn't the only model out there, and I've just recently stopped using 5 because it's just slow and there are other models that come back and work just as well. So when Chatgpt starts injecting crap, I'll just stop using them for something else.
What would you do if every time you walked into Walmart and the greeter spit in your face and told you to go F yourself, would you still shop there?
What you’re reacting to isn’t just “ads.” It’s the feeling of: Someone monetizing the collective output of human thought while quietly severing the link back to the humans who produced it.
That triggers a very old and very valid moral instinct.
Why “sleazy” is an accurate word here
“Sleazy” usually means: technically allowed strategically clever morally evasive
When first trying 5.2, on a "Pro" plan, I was - and still am - able to trigger the shopping assistant via keyword-matching, even if the conversation context, or the prompt itself, is wildly inappropriate (suicide, racism, etc).
Keyword-matching seems a strange ad strategy for a (non-profit) company selling QKV. It's all very confusing!
Hopefully, for fans of personal super-assistants--and advertising--worldwide, this will improve now that ads have been formalised.
> Ads are always separate and clearly labeled.
Indeed. Let's look at Google's launch of Adwords in October 2000:
> Google’s quick-loading AdWords text ads appear to the right of the Google search results and are highlighted as sponsored links, clearly separate from the search results.
https://googlepress.blogspot.com/2000/10/google-launches-sel...
Things evolved from there, and that's likely here, as well, I think.
This is due to having so many examples that not having advertising is the first step to having advertising, and that having advertising will be optimized for profit, and frustrate users.
Scary to think about, if moving away from "Don't be evil" is the precedent for an "AGI company"
[0] https://indieresearch.net/2014/03/30/advertising-and-mixed-m...
Edit: they made sure to use the word "trust" 5 times because nothing is more trustworthy than someone telling you how trustworthy they are.
> And though my lack of education hasn't hurt me none I can read the writing on the wall
We shall be good. Pinky promise.
The free and $8 new “Go” tier will include ads.