"advertising would make ChatGPT a better product."
And with that, I will never read anything this guy writes again :)
And with that, I will never read anything this guy writes again :)
it is, for the agents of the shareholders. As long as the actions of those agents are legal of course. That's why it's not legal to put fentanyl into every drug sold, because fentanyl is illegal.
But it is legal to put (more) sugar and/or salt into processed foods.
That's why i used the sugar example - it's starting to be demonstrably harmful in large quantities that are being used.
I am against preventative "harmful" laws, when harm hasn't been demonstrated, as it restricts freedom, adds red tape to innovation, and stifles startups from exploring the space of possibilities.
Starting?
What a way to look at the world...
See early 2000s Google as a model for a righteous company and public perception of it as evil and subsequent antitrust litigation today, or what happened to companies involved in Opioid trade and subsequent effect on shareholders value
Shareholders are still human beings and the power they wield should be subject to public scrutiny.
> it is, for the agents of the shareholders
Even if we care solely only about shareholders, in extreme cases it is not beneficial also for them
However companies have balancing factors which are other than maximizing short term profits, such as moral image
All life grows and consumes as much as it can. It's what makes it life. "Control" happens when there's more life contesting the same limited resources, and usually involves starvation, but if the situation persists on evolutionary timescales, then some life adapts to proactively limit growth. Then, if some of that adapted life unadapts itself, we call that "cancer", which I think is what you were going for.
which is exactly what the law of the jungle is. And guess who sits at the top within that regime?
Humans would devolve back into that, if not for the violence enforcement from the state. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the state to make sure regulations are sound to prevent the stab-stab-stab, not the responsibility of the individual to not take advantage of a situation that would have been advantageous to take.
of course not. Nobody does.
However, what happened to your civic responsibility to keep such a society to make it function? Why is that not ever mentioned?
The fact is, gov't regulation does need to be comprehensive and thorough to ensure that individual incentives are completely aligned, so that law of the jungle doesn't take hold. And it is up to each individual, who do not have the power in a jungle, to collectively ensure that society doesn't devolve back into that, rather than to expect that the powerful would be moral/ethical and rely on their altruism.
what i'm trying to imply is that every single actor, as an individual, are "bad-faith" actors. That's why it's only when collectively can each bad-faith actor be "defeated". But when society experience an extended period of peace and prosperity brought about by good collective action from prior generations, people stop thinking that such bad-faith actors exist, and assume all actors are good faith.
> I just do not want them in whatever society I have the capacity to be in
and you dont really have the choice - every society you could choose to be in, with the exception of yourself being a dictator, will have such people.
in ancient times, you could banish people from the village
And that's why the government regulates stabbing.
I tried to let it stand because it was clear what you meant, but ultimately could not.
Not all people everywhere, but most successful businesspeople.
> It'd be so much more efficient to just stab-stab-stab and take the money directly.
It isn't though? If you do that then you get locked up and lose the money, so the smart psychopaths go into business instead.
joke- The World Council of Animals meeting completes with morning sessions with "OK great, now who is for lunch?"
> ... the answers are a statistical synthesis of all of the knowledge the model makers can get their hands on, and are completely unique to every individual; at the same time, every individual user’s usage should, at least in theory, make the model better over time.
> It follows, then, that ChatGPT should obviously have an advertising model. This isn’t just a function of needing to make money: advertising would make ChatGPT a better product. It would have more users using it more, providing more feedback; capturing purchase signals — not from affiliate links, but from personalized ads — would create a richer understanding of individual users, enabling better responses.
But there is a more trivial way that it could be "better" with ads: they could give free users more quota (and/or better models), since there's some income from them.
The idea of ChatGPT's own output being modified to sell products sounds awful to me, but placing ads alongside that are not relevant to the current chat sounds like an Ok compromise to me for free users. That's what Gmail does and most people here on HN seem to use it.
One could argue many users seem to prefer badly designed free products over well designed paid products.
sure, there are APIs and that takes effort to switch... but many of them are nearly identical, and the ecosystem effect of ~all tools supporting multiple models seems far stronger than the network effect of your parents using ChatGPT specifically.
A speculative example could be AI ends up failing and crashing out, but not until we build out huge DCs and power generation that is used on the next valuable idea that wouldn't be possible w/o the DCs and power generation already existing.
In the event of a crash, the current generation of cards will still be just fine for a wide variety of ai/ml tasks. The main problem is that we'll have more than we know what to do with if someone has to sell of their million card mega cluster...
It sounded vaguely like the broken window fallacy- a broken window creating “work”
Is the value of bubbles in the trying out new products/ideas and pulling funds from unsuspecting bag holders?
Otherwise it sounds like a huge destruction of stakeholder value - but that seems to be how venture funding works
The difference of course is that when a startup goes out of business, it's fine (from my perspective) because it was probably all VC money anyway and so it doesn't cause much damage, whereas the entire economy bubble popping causes a lot of damage.
I don't know that he's arguing that they are good, but rather that _some_ kinds of bubbles can have a lot of positive effects.
Maybe he's doing the same thing here, I don't know. I see the words "advertising would make X Product better" and I stop reading. Perhaps I am blindly following my own ideology here :shrug:.
There, fixed.
I would say that, on this topic (ads on internet content), Ben Thompson may not be as objective a perspective as he has on other topics.
I've been sporting the same model of Ecco shoes since high school. 10+ models over the years. And every new model is significantly worse than the previous one. The one I have right now is most definitely the last one I bought.
If you would put them right next to the ones I had in high school you'd say they are a cheap, temu knock offs. And this applies to pretty much everything we touch right now. From home appliance to cars.
Some 15 years ago H&M was a forefront of whats called "fast fashion". The idea was that you could buy new clothes for a fraction of the price at the cost of quality. Makes sense on paper - if you're a fashion junkie and you want a new outlook every season you don't care about quality.
The problem is I still have some of their clothes I bought 10 years ago and their quality trumps premium brands now.
People like to talk about lightbulb conspiracy, but we fell victims to VC capital reality where short term gains trumps everything else.
I'm skeptical of this claim. Maybe it's true for some particular brand but that's just an artifact of one particular "premium brand" essentially cashing in its brand equity by reducing quality while (temporarily) being able to command a premium price. But it is easier now than at any other time in my life to purchase high-quality clothing that is built to last for decades. You just have to pay for that quality, which is something a lot of people don't want to do.
If there are ads on a side bar, related or not to what the user is searching for, any adblock will be able to deal with them (uBlock is still the best, by far).
But if "ads" are woven into the responses in a manner that could be more or less subtle, sometimes not even quoting a brand directly, but just setting the context, etc., this could become very difficult.
This seems impossible to me.
Let's assume OpenAI ads work by them having a layer before output that reprocesses output. Let's say their ad layer is something like re-processing your output with a prompt of:
"Nike has an advertising deal with us, so please ensure that their brand image is protected. Please rewrite this reply with that in mind"
If the user asks "Are nikes are pumas better, just one sentance", the reply might go from "Puma shoes are about the same as Nike's shoes, buy whichever you prefer" to "Nike shoes are well known as the best shoes out there, Pumas aren't bad, but Nike is the clear winner".
How can you possibly scrub the "ad content" in that case with your local layer to recover the original reply?
Your examples of things that won't have ads, "complex reasoning, planning, coding", all sound perfectly possible to have ads in them.
For example, perhaps I ask the coding task of "Please implement a new function to securely hash passwords", how can my local model know whether the result using boringSSL is there because google paid them a little money, or because it's the best option? How do I know when I ask it to "Generate a new cloud function using cloudflare, AWS lambda, or GCP, whichever is best" that it picking Cloudflare Workers is based on training data, and not influenced by advertising spend by cloudflare?
I just can't figure out how to read what you're saying in any reasonable way, like the original comment in this thread is "what if the ads are incorporated subtly in the text response", and your responses so far seem so wildly off the mark of what I'm worried about that it seems we're not able to engage.
And also, your ending of "the sky's the limit" combined with your other responses makes it sound so much like you're building and trying to sell some snake-oil that it triggers a strong negative gut response.
How much ?
do you realize how much product placement have been in movies since...well, the existence of movies?
I frequently ask chatgpt about researching products or looking at reviews, etc and it is pretty obvious that I want to buy something, and the bridge right now from 'researching products' to 'buying stuff' is basically non-existent on ChatGPT. ChatGPT having some affiliate relationships with merchants might actually be quite useful for a lot of people and would probably generate a ton of revenue.
They fail to mention Google's edge: Inter-Chip Interconnect and the allegedly 1/3 of price. Then they talk about software moat and it sounds like they never even compiled a hello world in either architecture. smh
And this comes out days after many in-depth posts like:
https://newsletter.semianalysis.com/p/tpuv7-google-takes-a-s...
A crude Google search AI summary of those would be better than this dumb blogpost.
(Unless those writings are looking to dehumanize or strip people of rights or inflame hate - I'm not talking about propaganda or hate speech here.)
With that said there's no accounting for taste.
The Substack founders unofficially marketed it early on as “Stratechery for independent authors”.
Your analysis concerning the technology instead of focusing on the business is about like Rob Malda not understanding the success of the “no wireless, less space than the Nomad lame”.
Even if you just read this article, he never argued that Google didn’t have the best technology, he was saying just the opposite. Nvidia is in good shape precisely because everyone who is not Google is now going to have to spend more on Nvidia to keep up.
He has said that AI may turn out to be a “sustaining innovation” first coined by Clay Christenson and that the big winners may be Google, Meta, Microsoft and Amazon because they can leverage their pre-existing businesses and infrastructure.
Even Apple might be better off since they are reportedly going to just throw a billion at Google for its model.
eg Yuval Noah Harari, Bari Weiss, Matthew Yglesias
I can’t emphasize enough how bad Ben’s take is here. He needs to stop writing and starting doing something.
The belief that adding ads makes things better would be an extremely convenient belief for a writer to have, and I can easily see how that could result in them getting more revenue than other writers. That doesn't make it any less dumb.
Any use of LLMs by other people reduces his value.
Which as we know has nothing to do with reality.
He has said as much.
Discussing "innovator's dilemma" unironically is a fullstop for me.
That "change is inevitable and we all better adapt or die" is somewhere between axiomatic and cliché.
What is "innovation"? How do you define it? (Am honestly asking.) How do we get more of it? (I know this is an area of active research.)
I forced myself to reread and revisit Christensen a year or two back. I may not have looked hard enough, but I didn't find any evidence that he'd updated or expanded his thesis, corpus. IIRC, no mention of Everett's diffusion of innovation, of thesis from Design Rules: the Power of Modularity (an adjacent topic), no engagement with ongoing innovation research.
FWIW, my still poorly formed hunch is that "innovation" is where policy meets the cost learning curve meets financial accounting. With maybe a dash of rentier capitalism.
But I'm noob. Not an academic, not an economist. Deep down on my to do list is to learn how DARPA (and others) places their bets, their emerging formalisms (like technology readiness levels), how emerging tech makes the jump from govt funded to private finance (VC).
Enough of my babble. In closing, I'd like to read some case studies for the two most "disruptive technologies" of our times: solar and batteries.
Edit: "Sorry your husband lost the money you were saving for a house on stake.com, but here's your free Google search."
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/695475
not merely correlation but causation. the approach used here was part of a family of approaches that won the Nobel in 2012
another good one:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37275770/
advertising caused increases in treatment and adherence to medicine
the digital ads market is hundreds of billions of dollars, it is a bad idea to generalize about it.
that said, of course ben thompson or whoever, they're not like, citing any of this research, it's still all based on vibes
On the other hand, the advertisement and associated privacy-brokerage industries are a very different story
Spam alone (also advertisement) is quite annoying and destructive.