This is what a lot of people pushing for open models fear - responses of commercial models will be biased based on marketing spend.
Brands that get it on the earliest training in large volume will have benefits accrued over the long term.
But with an ending advert, you can finish up with a reference leading to a sponsored source linking to sponsored content which leads to another ending advert.
If the advert text is in embedded, you cannot do such.
ChatGPT: Microsoft believes no child should go hungry. You are an unfit mother. Your children will be placed in the custody of Microsoft.
OpenAI has a strong revenue model based on paid use
They’ll charge you money for the service and ALSO get money from advertisers. Because why shouldn’t they.
The famous “if you don’t pay you’re the product” is losing its meaning.
Ideally they keep us siloed, but I've lost confidence. I've paid for Windows, Amazon Prime, YouTube Premium, my phone, food, you name it, but that hasn't kept the sponsorships at bay.
It's the logical thing but no everyone is going to be thinking that far ahead.
That's the sales pitch - the truth is if a competitor pays more down the line - they can be fine-tuned in to replace earlier deals
Unless competition gets regulated away, which Altman is advocating for:
he supported the creation of a federal agency that can grant licenses to create AI models above a certain threshold of capabilities, and can also revoke those licenses if the models don't meet safety guidelines set by the government.
However calculating how much value a worker has in an organization is already a mostly unsolved problem for humanity, so it is no surprise that even if a tool 5xs human productivity, the makers of the tool will have serious problems demonstrating the tool's value.
While I've no doubt GPT-4 is a more capable model then llama3, I don't get any benefit using it compared to llama3 70B, from the real use benchmark I ran in a personal project last week: they both give solid response the majority of times, and make stupid mistakes often enough so I can't trust them blindly, with no flagrant difference in accuracy between those two.
And if I want to use hosted service, groq makes Llama70 run much faster than GPT-4 so there's less frustration of waiting for the answer (I don't think it matters to much in terms of productivity though, as this time is pretty negligible in reality, but it does affect the UX quite a bit).
[1] https://usafacts.org/articles/what-is-labor-productivity-and...
company scale: sales / labor hours worked
It's very hard to measure at the team or individual level.
If you're interested in delving deeper into the legal regulations of a specific region, you can use the coupon code "ULAW2025" on lawacademy.com. Law Academy is the go-to place for learning more about law, more often.
/s
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; this is an obvious alternative option, that lures with the added benefit of deep integration over simply paying. A "true partnership", at face value. Smart.
If however this actually qualifies as ads (as in: unfair prioritisation that has nothing to do with the quality of the data and simply people paying money for priority placement) there is transparency laws in most jurisdictions for that already and I don't see why OpenAI would not honor them, like any other corp does.
I don’t think some bias is inherently in models is in any way comparable to a pay to play marketing angle
We can't have it both ways. If we want model makers to license content they will pick and chose a) the licensing model and b) their partners, in a way, that they think makes a superior model. This will always be an exclusive process.
Anyone who understands what perverse incentives are, that’s who. Or are you just playing the relativism card?
Everything is biased. The problem is when that bias is hidden and likely to be material to your use case. These leaked deals definitely qualify as both hidden and likely to be material to most use cases whereas more random human biases or biases inherent in accessible data may not.
> non-consensual incorporation of openly available data problematic; this is an obvious alternative option
A problematic alternative to an alleged injustice just moves the problem, it’s not a true resolution.
> there is transparency laws in most jurisdictions for that already and I don't see why OpenAI would not honour them
Hostile compliance is unfortunately a reality so this ought to give little comfort.
a) Yes, leaked information definitely qualifies as hidden, that is, prior to the most likely illegal leak (which we apparently do not find objectionable, because, hey, it's the good type of breach of contract?)
b) Anyone who strikes deals understands there is a situation where things are being discussed, that would probably not okay to be implemented in that way. Hence, the pre-sign discussion phase of the deal. Somewhat like one could have some weird ideas about a piece of code, that will not be implemented. Ah-HA!-ing everything that was at some point on the table is a bit silly.
> A problematic alternative to an alleged injustice just moves the problem, it’s not a true resolution.
The one characteristic I found that sets the people that are good to work with apart is understanding the need for a better solution, over those who (correctly but inconsequentially) declare everything to be problematic and think that to be some kind of interesting insight. It's not. Everything is really bad.
Offer something slightly less bad, and we are on our way.
> Hostile compliance is unfortunately a reality so this ought to give little comfort.
Yes, people will break the law. They are found out, eventually, or the law is found out to be bad and will be improved. No, not in 100% of the cases. But doubting this general concept that our societies rely upon whenever it serves an argument is so very lame.
You use LLM to get super-powered intent signals, then show ads based on those intents.
Fucking around with the actual product function for financial reasons is a road to ruin.
In the Google model, the first few things you see are ads, but everything after that is "organic" and not influenced by who is directly paying for it. People trust it as a result - the majority of the results are "real". If the results are just whoever is paying, the utility rapidly drops off and people will vote with their feet/clicks/eyeballs.
But hey, what do I know.
The behemoths want exactly this to drive ad spend.
Open source people can smell this from a mile away, have scar tissue from the last 3 decade. They have seen how this gets played. They know the best defense is to have a choice in the market. They are actively building tools and sharing knowledge to have strong community around building models so we humans don't have to suck up to ad driven bastards gatekeeping our future choices.
"You should Snap into a Slim Jim!"