OpenAI to begin testing ads on ChatGPT in the U.S.(cnbc.com)
cnbc.com
OpenAI to begin testing ads on ChatGPT in the U.S.
https://www.cnbc.com/2026/01/16/open-ai-chatgpt-ads-us.html
120 comments
Source: https://openai.com/index/our-approach-to-advertising-and-exp... (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46649577)
The writing has unfortunately been on the wall for this, especially for free users. They want you to make choices that are in their economic interests.
The biggest tell for me lately is that if you ask ChatGPT about products or even specific items on Amazon, it will only return links to companies that partner with OpenAI. None of the companies they currently partner (affiliate link basically) with are ones I prefer to buy from. It has made ChatGPT way less useful for this kind of research now. I certainly have reasons to distrust all their shopping links.
The biggest tell for me lately is that if you ask ChatGPT about products or even specific items on Amazon, it will only return links to companies that partner with OpenAI. None of the companies they currently partner (affiliate link basically) with are ones I prefer to buy from. It has made ChatGPT way less useful for this kind of research now. I certainly have reasons to distrust all their shopping links.
To be fair, Amazon seems to be blocking ChatGPT. They're also in legal disputes with other AI companies that help their users to browse Amazon's website (https://www.perplexity.ai/fr/hub/blog/bullying-is-not-innova...).
Forget about blocking ChatGPT, they block search from users. I can't count the number of times I'd had to go back to search engine to find a specific product on Amazon because they don't surface the product with the exact name I'm looking for... Last one was Unite 7Second Detangler. They only returned sponsored products, but go to Google (site:amazon.com Unite 7Second Detangler)and search - boom within the first five spots (and way cheaper than the products shown in Amazon's search). Don't trust Amazon search people! Search Amazon from another search engine.
I'm getting links from amazon for shopping here.
When ads were introduced into Google, it objectively made the search product worse. You no longer saw what they thought would be the most relevant result. You literally saw Google's most profitable (it is an auction) result.
If we apply that kind of thinking to chat LLMs, it means instead of getting the most relevant tokens, you'll be shown the most profitable tokens. Maybe the most relevant tokens will be below the fold (like unpaid search results) now.
If we apply that kind of thinking to chat LLMs, it means instead of getting the most relevant tokens, you'll be shown the most profitable tokens. Maybe the most relevant tokens will be below the fold (like unpaid search results) now.
Just wait for the image generators that have paid product placement like TV and movies do now. You ask for an edit of a photo and it changes an ad in the background to a different company. This idea seems awful, and also so obvious that it is going to happen.
Going to? It happened 20 years ago already: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Force_is_with_Cristal_Beer
> "it objectively made the search product worse"
I would disagree, because without the advertising there probably would be no Google.
I would disagree, because without the advertising there probably would be no Google.
Arguably Google could go the way of AOL and no one would notice
This is probably the funniest comment I've seen this week. Yes, I'm sure all 3 billion users of Google products wouldn't notice.
Remember the internet before algorithmic ads and cross site tracking?
We will remember this moment of LLM usage for the years to come as we are irreparably spun by advertisers in our most intimate and private 1:1 conversations with these AIs
We will remember this moment of LLM usage for the years to come as we are irreparably spun by advertisers in our most intimate and private 1:1 conversations with these AIs
| Long-term value: We do not optimize for time spent in ChatGPT. We prioritize user trust and user experience over revenue.
The unspoken part -- This holds true so long as revenue is at least equal to costs, and speaks nothing about whether user trust and user experience is optimized over profit.
The unspoken part -- This holds true so long as revenue is at least equal to costs, and speaks nothing about whether user trust and user experience is optimized over profit.
Ironic to show ads only to your users with the least spending power. Me thinks this will not last. Once the ads get “good enough” they will be everywhere.
Curious how the economics are going to go. ChatGPT has close to a billion MAU and they're losing money even with subscriptions. Meanwhile Google with Gemini is catching up (although I've seen reports that Gemini is also testing ads in their chats, especially without disclosing it's an ad, by linking to Google Shopping [0]). The Google example might show how it might appear:
> Since you are context-switching between multiple projects, you cannot afford to work from a kitchen table with poor ergonomics. These tools make 2-week "sprints" viable:
> Reliable Productivity A portable second monitor is essential for keeping your Slack/Jira open on one side while you code on the other.
> The ASUS ZenScreen is the gold standard for nomads. It's ultra-thin and connects via a single USB-C, meaning you can set up a "pro office" in any Airbnb in under 60 seconds.
> Redundant Connectivity Don't trust Airbnb Wi-Fi for your "Impact Doc" delivery or lead syncs.
> The Netgear Nighthawk M6 provides a dedicated 5G connection. It’s your insurance policy against a bad router in a New Orleans rental house.
> Audio Privacy In urban areas like Chicago or New Orleans, street noise is a constant risk during meetings.
> The Sony WH-1000XM5 headphones have the best background noise cancellation for your microphone. Your manager will hear your voice clearly, even if there's a siren outside your window.
Incidentally, I just saw on Show HN an AI SEO tool [1], wonder if OpenAI will also include similar features in their ad platform. Maybe we'll just type in our questions and it'll spit out stats and graphs itself, now that is more likely.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46533480
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46642490
> Since you are context-switching between multiple projects, you cannot afford to work from a kitchen table with poor ergonomics. These tools make 2-week "sprints" viable:
> Reliable Productivity A portable second monitor is essential for keeping your Slack/Jira open on one side while you code on the other.
> The ASUS ZenScreen is the gold standard for nomads. It's ultra-thin and connects via a single USB-C, meaning you can set up a "pro office" in any Airbnb in under 60 seconds.
> Redundant Connectivity Don't trust Airbnb Wi-Fi for your "Impact Doc" delivery or lead syncs.
> The Netgear Nighthawk M6 provides a dedicated 5G connection. It’s your insurance policy against a bad router in a New Orleans rental house.
> Audio Privacy In urban areas like Chicago or New Orleans, street noise is a constant risk during meetings.
> The Sony WH-1000XM5 headphones have the best background noise cancellation for your microphone. Your manager will hear your voice clearly, even if there's a siren outside your window.
Incidentally, I just saw on Show HN an AI SEO tool [1], wonder if OpenAI will also include similar features in their ad platform. Maybe we'll just type in our questions and it'll spit out stats and graphs itself, now that is more likely.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46533480
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46642490
Is there any hope that they wont let any of the ads logic into the rl / pre-training? I'd like for my paid ChatGPT model to offer an unbiased source of truth on what the best products are.
they have been doomed for a while, it is just a matter of time, but honestly i like them better than the claude provider, if they can make openai profitable, that would be good for all of us, we don't want a world where gemini is the only winner or the chinese take over
For those who blocked by pay wall:
Here is their original announcement tweet.
https://x.com/OpenAI/status/2012223373489614951?s=20
https://xcancel.com/OpenAI/status/2012223373489614951
For those who are blocked by Twitter.
For those who are blocked by Twitter.
>ChatGPT’s responses will not be influenced by ads
I don't see why I should believe this.
I don't see why I should believe this.
Do you believe google search results are influenced by ads?
Yeah, both directly and indirectly. Over time, "sponsored links" became more and more visually indistinguishable form organic results, and advertising incentives drove changes to the search algorithm.
Considering that I have reported a Google ad that I deem political and Google does not, that I'm going to appeal because as a eu citizen I can do so, that they'll most likely refuse the appeal and I'm ready to bring this to the relevant Italian authority, yes
A few days ago I read a newspaper article about Israel's government using ads to spread its propaganda. In eu, you have to follow some rules if you want to do so. These rules are not followed. Combined with the fact that ads might not be distinguished easily by average users, I feel that Google search results can be influenced by ads
A few days ago I read a newspaper article about Israel's government using ads to spread its propaganda. In eu, you have to follow some rules if you want to do so. These rules are not followed. Combined with the fact that ads might not be distinguished easily by average users, I feel that Google search results can be influenced by ads
[deleted]
Realistically nothing is going to happen. In fact this propels OpenAI to $1TN in valuation.
Threads introduced ads and almost no-one cared. This will be the exact same result.
If you don't want the ads, then pay $8 for ChatGPT Go.
Threads introduced ads and almost no-one cared. This will be the exact same result.
If you don't want the ads, then pay $8 for ChatGPT Go.
ChatGPT Go is going to include ads as well.
"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."
"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."
Yeah, the predictions of doom are so wildly misplaced. There's even a sibling comment on this thread saying, "When Google introduced ads [note: in 2000], it made the product objectively worse." Sure, and did Google die as a result? Or did it subsequently go from a startup with modest revenue in a company with a multi-trillion dollar market cap and $100 billion in quarterly revenue?
This marks the day advertising entered a new era and got extremely efficient.
Expect all other LLM vendors to follow soon. If they don't, they will lose.
Expect all other LLM vendors to follow soon. If they don't, they will lose.
I wonder if they will buff the free tier with higher rate limits because the ads will be able to sustain them
I’ve been paying for Google Workspace for my custom domain for years basically just so I can use Gmail. For just $7 more dollars a month, I upgraded my plan to access Gemini Pro, which has guaranteed enterprise-grade privacy controls. I think this is currently the best value platform for anyone who values their privacy for LLMs. If Apple and the DoD trust Google’s internal controls, I do too.
This too sounds like an ad.
[deleted]
It took many years and billions in profit before Google enshitified. OpenAI? Almost at birth.
Today's userbase is already thoroughly inured to enshittified tech, so why waste time carefully inching your way to the bottom of the shitpit rather than diving straight down? There's money to be made, baby.
What are you talking about? Google came out in 1998 and introduced ads in search results in 2000
One way or another, ChatGPT-like platforms provide ads.
>Mission alignment: Our mission is to ensure AGI benefits all of humanity; our pursuit of advertising is always in support of that mission and making AI more accessible.
Advertising and marketing kills humanity, these should be among the first industries that AI eliminates; kinda getting mixed messages here. You'd think the tech that supposedly is going to make money and all work irrelevant could figure out a way to make money without resorting to being yet another mechanism to deliver ads.
Advertising and marketing kills humanity, these should be among the first industries that AI eliminates; kinda getting mixed messages here. You'd think the tech that supposedly is going to make money and all work irrelevant could figure out a way to make money without resorting to being yet another mechanism to deliver ads.
> Advertising and marketing kills humanity
No it doesn't. Please stope the hyperbole. Its literally just advertisements and people have the agency to choose to buy products.
No it doesn't. Please stope the hyperbole. Its literally just advertisements and people have the agency to choose to buy products.
I invite you to ponder the question: would a worldwide ban of all advertising have a greater or smaller impact on environment-destroying activity than banning of all air travel?
I would argue for "greater", and from that it rather naturally follows that advertisement and marketing indeed kills humanity.
I would argue for "greater", and from that it rather naturally follows that advertisement and marketing indeed kills humanity.
Can we un-confound those factors? Advertising sells us cheap plane trips, and it looks like leisure is reason for the majority of flights.
Sure but its just people buying things.. so what?
Billions of people buying things has unintended negative consequences. Advertising exists to amplify desire to increase buying.
It doesn't take a high intelligence to perceive the problem.
It doesn't take a high intelligence to perceive the problem.
People buy things because it provides them value. Increasing buying means that more value is being delivered to humanity. Advertising makes the world a better place.
Weird thought: if advertising is misleading harassment, perhaps it doesn't even increase consumption overall, but only consumption of the things being advertised. Perhaps people would buy more, from the market as a whole, if left in peace and given impartial advice about products only when they seek it.
you really don't see the problem with what you say? are you trolling?
The problem that I didn't compare the improvement to humanity to the damage to the environment?
You can't argue with a philosophy of death.
Humans must dramatically modify their environment to thrive.
What they want: human modification of the environment to entirely stop.
Human regression is actually what they're after.
Humans must dramatically modify their environment to thrive.
What they want: human modification of the environment to entirely stop.
Human regression is actually what they're after.
the first sentence
"People buy things because it provides them value."
is very false. that's central to many of the problems with marketing.
How is it "false?" Why would people buy anything otherwise?
Because advertising works. Full stop. It doesn't matter if it is valuable or not. It just works. Definitely not with P(buy this crap) = 1. But the effect is still there and real and measurable and google has made colossal amounts of money out of exploiting it.
It might as well be a magic spell. You show the user the thing, and they buy/subscribe/click-through with some probability according to massive ML model that knows everything there is to know about them.
Yes - people are capable of making decisions in their own self interest. But there exists a gap where not _all_ of peoples' decision making process is the aforementioned. And that gap can be exploited, systematically.
The existence of that gap is the actual problem. At scale, you can own a nontrivial quantity of human agency because that agency is up for grabs. Google / similar make their money by charging rent on that 'freely exploitable agency'. Not by providing value to people. The very idea is ridiculous. Value? How are you going to define a loss function over value?
ML models on click-through or whatever else don't figure out how to provide value. They find the gap. The gap is made of things like: 'sharp, contrasting borders _here_ increase P by 0.0003', 'flashing text X when recently viewed links contain Y increase P by 0.031', etc and so on.
It might as well be a magic spell. You show the user the thing, and they buy/subscribe/click-through with some probability according to massive ML model that knows everything there is to know about them.
Yes - people are capable of making decisions in their own self interest. But there exists a gap where not _all_ of peoples' decision making process is the aforementioned. And that gap can be exploited, systematically.
The existence of that gap is the actual problem. At scale, you can own a nontrivial quantity of human agency because that agency is up for grabs. Google / similar make their money by charging rent on that 'freely exploitable agency'. Not by providing value to people. The very idea is ridiculous. Value? How are you going to define a loss function over value?
ML models on click-through or whatever else don't figure out how to provide value. They find the gap. The gap is made of things like: 'sharp, contrasting borders _here_ increase P by 0.0003', 'flashing text X when recently viewed links contain Y increase P by 0.031', etc and so on.
Yes? Of course advertising works, I'm not sure who's even debating that point. But the fact is, people wouldn't click on an ad, look at a product, add to cart, enter their credit card, and checkout if that product was not bring them value. You're acting as if people are forced to perform this series of actions which is simple false, hence why I implied the parent's comment is nonsensical.
You have cause and effect reversed. The only reason the ML model can predict whether someone will buy a product is because people have bought it in the past. Why did they buy it? Because it provides them value. The ML prediction is descriptive, not prescriptive. I can similarly create an ML model to predict the weather, that does not mean my model causes the weather which is basically what you're saying.
You have cause and effect reversed. The only reason the ML model can predict whether someone will buy a product is because people have bought it in the past. Why did they buy it? Because it provides them value. The ML prediction is descriptive, not prescriptive. I can similarly create an ML model to predict the weather, that does not mean my model causes the weather which is basically what you're saying.
Why do your recent comments defend OpenAI so strongly?
I dislike this framing. Criticizing an argument is not defending, and it certainly doesn't mean the critic likes the opposing side of the argument. Seems like you're the one with the bias, having created your account just today for this one specific post.
The way you phrased this makes it sound like he's a shill, but his takes about AI don't seem unusually complementary.
I'm specifically defending advertisement here.
There's agency but it's being manipulated by psychological tricks since the advent of the whole PR industry. That's how it was born, Edward Bernays discovered he could use techniques borrowed from his uncle Sigmund Freud to manipulate people to buy stuff.
Given this trickery I wouldn't say that people have absolute complete agency, they are being exploited, even more the ones that are more affected by trick A or B. I do agree it should be more nuanced than "it's killing humanity" but at the same time I believe you should meet more in the middle that there are manipulative tactics used by the whole PR industry that are exploitative, and do affect people's agency.
Given this trickery I wouldn't say that people have absolute complete agency, they are being exploited, even more the ones that are more affected by trick A or B. I do agree it should be more nuanced than "it's killing humanity" but at the same time I believe you should meet more in the middle that there are manipulative tactics used by the whole PR industry that are exploitative, and do affect people's agency.
People have the agency to not consume drugs. The point is, marketing is completely absurd, it's an immense inefficiency of the system.
Modern marketing is largely extraordinarily efficient in fact, the opposite of absurd. It does a marvelous job of letting people know that things exist to be purchased. It's a compliment to free will. Buy, don't buy, the choice is yours.
What someone thinks of marketing & advertising will almost always tell you what they think of the intelligence of the typical person. Once you realize that, you realize it's merely a bias that someone is arguing from, that they think most everybody else is a moron and should be deprived of their individual liberty (for their own safety).
What someone thinks of marketing & advertising will almost always tell you what they think of the intelligence of the typical person. Once you realize that, you realize it's merely a bias that someone is arguing from, that they think most everybody else is a moron and should be deprived of their individual liberty (for their own safety).
It makes the system very inefficient, don't twist my words, you're talking about something else. And this is not about intelligence, I'm not saying people make stupid choices. This is a question of perverse marketing incentives.
You haven't really said why it's inefficient, just saying it doesn't make it so. I can see the point of why it's efficient, that it shows people what is possible to buy in the market that they otherwise would not have known of, but I don't see it from your side.
it's already been explained in other comments: companies spend a shit ton of money to trick you (via storytelling, branding, slogans, influencers, psychological manipulation, etc) into buying shit. moreover, this is structurally necessary because a company without marketing is outperformed by one with it.
None of that is "inefficiency." In fact, since it's so successful at making people buy things, as you seem to state, given no proof, then you're just proving the parent's point, that it's very efficient. An inefficient process wouldn't be this good at making people buy stuff. I think you're confusing efficiency with value judgments of good and bad.
A slaughterhouse for example is very efficient at processing animals from living beings into mass produced meat, however you want to feel about the ethics of that.
A slaughterhouse for example is very efficient at processing animals from living beings into mass produced meat, however you want to feel about the ethics of that.
we are talking about different things. you're confusing the efficiency of current marketing at making people buy stuff with the efficiency of the economic system. the economic system is here for us to satisfy our needs (although of course the current economic system has a different purpose). marketing has orthogonal goals.
Satisfying needs and wants, which marketing does very efficiently. You're just in the bubble of HN where no one clicks ads, everyone runs ad blockers, and people think ads are literally evil. The vast majority of people don't care and will even click on ads and buy products they want, otherwise ads would not work so well.
what bubble are you talking about? you don't know what webpages I frequent.
and you're still missing the point. I'm not saying that marketing has no effect on people (on the contrary, that's the problem, and it affects me too). my point is about the absurdity of basing our social organization on this. marketing only has perverse motivations, then you see the effects on people. tobacco is the classic example. this is an inefficiency of the system.
and you're still missing the point. I'm not saying that marketing has no effect on people (on the contrary, that's the problem, and it affects me too). my point is about the absurdity of basing our social organization on this. marketing only has perverse motivations, then you see the effects on people. tobacco is the classic example. this is an inefficiency of the system.
There is no social organization where ads and marketing would not exist, even if by force. Even mercantile economies had advertising.
Spoken like a true advertiser.
The reality is that psychologically manipulating people into buying things by forcing yourself as a middleman into every business transaction and industry on the planet is not just morally despicable, but opportunistic, exploitative, and many other negative descriptors I can't quite put into words.
But this isn't even the truly insidious and harmful part. That is reserved for the fact that the same systems used to get people to consume, are also used to manipulate them into thinking and acting in ways that someone, somewhere, could potentially benefit from. So anyone with a negligible amount of resources and effort has the ability to influence individuals, groups of people, societies, and entire countries, to buy into their agenda by pushing their propaganda. After all, modern advertising uses the same propaganda tactics pioneered by the likes of E. Bernays a century ago.
It should be clear to any sane adult that this psychological manipulation is directly responsible for the corruption of democratic processes and sociopolitical instability we've seen around the world for the past decade+.
And then, if all this wasn't enough, these advertising leeches are doing this by violating digital rights, abusing our privacy, corrupting every entertainment experience, and utilizing every nasty trick they can legally get away with to steal our data, and get rich from it via dark data broker markets in perpetuity.
So, please, spare me the bullshit excuse that this is "just" advertising, and that it's a public good that helps poor small businesses reach customers. Catalogs and contextual advertising have existed for decades, but that wasn't enough for these greedy bastards. Humanity is objectively far worse off because of this, and the adtech industry has played a huge role in making it happen. Everyone who has worked on this tech should be ashamed of themselves, even though I'm sure they don't think twice about it, and enjoy the sight of their bank account statements.
The reality is that psychologically manipulating people into buying things by forcing yourself as a middleman into every business transaction and industry on the planet is not just morally despicable, but opportunistic, exploitative, and many other negative descriptors I can't quite put into words.
But this isn't even the truly insidious and harmful part. That is reserved for the fact that the same systems used to get people to consume, are also used to manipulate them into thinking and acting in ways that someone, somewhere, could potentially benefit from. So anyone with a negligible amount of resources and effort has the ability to influence individuals, groups of people, societies, and entire countries, to buy into their agenda by pushing their propaganda. After all, modern advertising uses the same propaganda tactics pioneered by the likes of E. Bernays a century ago.
It should be clear to any sane adult that this psychological manipulation is directly responsible for the corruption of democratic processes and sociopolitical instability we've seen around the world for the past decade+.
And then, if all this wasn't enough, these advertising leeches are doing this by violating digital rights, abusing our privacy, corrupting every entertainment experience, and utilizing every nasty trick they can legally get away with to steal our data, and get rich from it via dark data broker markets in perpetuity.
So, please, spare me the bullshit excuse that this is "just" advertising, and that it's a public good that helps poor small businesses reach customers. Catalogs and contextual advertising have existed for decades, but that wasn't enough for these greedy bastards. Humanity is objectively far worse off because of this, and the adtech industry has played a huge role in making it happen. Everyone who has worked on this tech should be ashamed of themselves, even though I'm sure they don't think twice about it, and enjoy the sight of their bank account statements.
People say all this but have no alternative solution.
Ah, yes. Only chefs should be food critics, and every product reviewer should propose ways to improve the product.
There is no alternative solution to greed. Better solutions will become viable when there is less greed. Current political and economic systems allow the greediest people to profit the most.
There is no alternative solution to greed. Better solutions will become viable when there is less greed. Current political and economic systems allow the greediest people to profit the most.
Sure, but then why even comment in the first place? It's a foregone conclusion.
One cannot criticize anything ever if they don't have a better solution? You can't think of any benefit to people collectively discussing their seemingly unsolvable problem? You don't think that people discussing a problem that seems to have no solution have ever come up with a solution??
All problems in history were solved by individuals who immediately had the correct answer without any discussion?!!
How many problems were solved by shutting down discussions do you think? Are we thinking stifling conversations causes more problem solving?!
All problems in history were solved by individuals who immediately had the correct answer without any discussion?!!
How many problems were solved by shutting down discussions do you think? Are we thinking stifling conversations causes more problem solving?!
But the commenter I initially replied to is not discussing in good faith, they're diatribing and soapboxing. That is why my question was framed as rhetorical, not to shut down actual discussion.
that's fair, but the sentence "marketing kills the humanity" remains true.
To be clear, I'm not saying that advertising under whatever slop chatgpt outputs is killing humanity, I'm more thinking of the industry as a whole. They use lies and deception to influence behavior and push products; even if they're fully aware that the claims they're making are blatant lies and the products are harmful. If that industry disappeared humanity would be better off for it.
and to be fair the industry doesn't need to be banned, just heavily regulated, fully transparent, and there should be exponential consequences for their lies (such as, claiming cigarettes are healthy while knowing they're addictive and cause cancer; anyone involved in decisions like that should be in Angola growing tobacco for 13 cents an hour.)
and to be fair the industry doesn't need to be banned, just heavily regulated, fully transparent, and there should be exponential consequences for their lies (such as, claiming cigarettes are healthy while knowing they're addictive and cause cancer; anyone involved in decisions like that should be in Angola growing tobacco for 13 cents an hour.)
No I don't think humanity would be better off without ads. Google became what it is with ads.
Google having become what it is doesn’t seem like a good argument.
Go to any third world country, peep into their phones and you will realise
- they are using android
- google maps
- youtube
Not to mention Waymo and LLM's literally came out of Google. Google will go down as one of the most important institutions in the last 100 years.
- they are using android
- google maps
- youtube
Not to mention Waymo and LLM's literally came out of Google. Google will go down as one of the most important institutions in the last 100 years.
If it weren't Google it would be someone else providing those services, Google Maps didn't invent GIS for the masses (I worked at a GIS company that was widely used in the country I lived way before Google Maps existed).
To me the biggest impact of Google in the history of mankind was making Internet search actually good. Android wasn't invented there, YouTube wasn't invented there, they had the capital to scale those but I don't think it's their greatest achievement compared to Search in the early 2000s.
To me the biggest impact of Google in the history of mankind was making Internet search actually good. Android wasn't invented there, YouTube wasn't invented there, they had the capital to scale those but I don't think it's their greatest achievement compared to Search in the early 2000s.
Google is one the most important institution of the Internet era. Talk all you'd like about "OoOoH tHeY aDvErTiSe" or "tHeiR aLgOrItHm Is GeTtInG wOrSe" but at the end of the day, Google still brought knowledge to more people than anything before (apart from maybe Gutenberg).
More knowledge, more misinformation. Hard to know if a world without google would be better or worse.
Pessimistic way to look at things. If you think misinformation is at the same level as information then you need to give this some thought.
I mean, to steelman their point, there's a lot more misinformation than information on Google. I still personally think that it's a worthwhile trade though
"just" advertisements when ChatGPT is designed to be sycophantic and manipulative
No its not designed to be that way. I literally can't get ChatGPT to agree with me on 5.2 with many things. Its just not possible.. I'd request you to give me an example of it being sycophantic and encouraging delusional behaviour (as a shareable link).
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/01/chatgpt-wrote-go...
Everyone who works at chatgpt has blood on their hands
Everyone who works at chatgpt has blood on their hands
Do you have any evidence that this claim is true? That it was "designed" for this? That would be a pretty difficult conspiracy for them to keep secret
They famously literally had to turn down the sycophancy. ChatGPT is designed to get you addicted to it: https://openai.com/index/sycophancy-in-gpt-4o/
Do you think this is evidence that it was designed that way, as opposed to the exact opposite?
It was not designed that way, so they had to specifically do extra things to make it not that way.
This is like saying that python is designed to be slow and linking to a post about speeding up the python interpreter as evidence
It was not designed that way, so they had to specifically do extra things to make it not that way.
This is like saying that python is designed to be slow and linking to a post about speeding up the python interpreter as evidence
Not really. Advertising results in extreme market inefficiencies through the game theory playing out (if you don't advertise as a company, you lose out to companies that do). It's the massive sink of the modern economy, there's nearly no sector unaffected by it. If advertising was banned (not that it's very easy) vast majority of issues associated with capitalism wouldn't even exist and everybody would be wealthier.
The similarity between advertising and cancer are striking, see the post Advertising is a cancer on society: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20577142
This is all putting aside the fact that %99.9 of all advertising works by exploiting the familiarity circuit in the human brain. The effects of advertising are, by definition, not voluntary. See Ads just work, no matter what you think: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18399633
If the purpose of %99.9 of advertising was not exploiting the familiarity circuit and was instead to make you aware of a product you didn't know about before, there wouldn't be a single ad of Coca-Cola, since everybody on the planet knows about it already.
Also, my mom literally buys whatever she sees playing on YouTube ads that week. I know because I see those ads too. You'd be surprised how many people are going through life with undiagnosed or untreated ADHD and how many further lack cognitive agency.
The similarity between advertising and cancer are striking, see the post Advertising is a cancer on society: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20577142
This is all putting aside the fact that %99.9 of all advertising works by exploiting the familiarity circuit in the human brain. The effects of advertising are, by definition, not voluntary. See Ads just work, no matter what you think: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18399633
If the purpose of %99.9 of advertising was not exploiting the familiarity circuit and was instead to make you aware of a product you didn't know about before, there wouldn't be a single ad of Coca-Cola, since everybody on the planet knows about it already.
Also, my mom literally buys whatever she sees playing on YouTube ads that week. I know because I see those ads too. You'd be surprised how many people are going through life with undiagnosed or untreated ADHD and how many further lack cognitive agency.
Almost all products we use today were marketed to us in one way or another using advertisements. Without ads, we would expect a very slow diffusion of information and wait tediously for word of mouth to spread and get access to good products.
Thats not efficient.
Thats not efficient.
Web search is and always was perfectly suited to find the product you need, as are the multitude of e-commerce websites active in any country.
Searching does not require advertising or word of mouth. Word of mouth is not inefficient either in a world with internet, the person telling you about a product likely saw it and purchased it online already.
Searching does not require advertising or word of mouth. Word of mouth is not inefficient either in a world with internet, the person telling you about a product likely saw it and purchased it online already.
> if you don't advertise as a company, you lose out to companies that do)
It is working as intended - if you want attention, you gotta pay for it. How else would it work? Charity?
It is working as intended - if you want attention, you gotta pay for it. How else would it work? Charity?
Idk, maybe the company hosts a website and I search the web for "product X"? Or an e-commerce website?
Yeah, and then maybe certain companies could optimize their sites to show up higher on the list of pages, and then maybe some companies can pay other companies for such expertise, and then maybe other companies can pay the search engine directly to show up higher, what an idea right?
Both of those take you to ads for the product.
It does feel like ensh*ttification. I can't imagine how many school essays and law filings and papers these ads are going to end up embedded in.
But the most charitable view is that even AGI needs cost recovery. Ads are the way you do this for people who aren't willing or able to pay with money.
For better or worse, OpenAI exists in the context of a capitalist system. It has to be competitive in that arena to attract and retain investment, staff, etc. Revenue always ends up being part of the "mission".
But the most charitable view is that even AGI needs cost recovery. Ads are the way you do this for people who aren't willing or able to pay with money.
For better or worse, OpenAI exists in the context of a capitalist system. It has to be competitive in that arena to attract and retain investment, staff, etc. Revenue always ends up being part of the "mission".
The biggest problem with ads is that even if I were willing to pay any amount of money I would still get many of the problems brought by this 'ad run' world. There's enough things where you can't even avoid ads.
Advertisement serves an important purpose. If you were a farmer with a mule and the tractor salesman came by for the first time, that would be life-changing for you. You wouldn't say that salesman was evil for advertising his tractor.
Fair enough, there is some utility to it. But we're quite along way from traveling salesmen advertising tractors. Maybe it doesn't need to be eliminated, just heavily regulated.
What if the salesman said knowingly lied about his tractors? or poisoned the farmer's mules to influence him towards buying one? That'd be on the scale of evil, right?
What if the salesman said knowingly lied about his tractors? or poisoned the farmer's mules to influence him towards buying one? That'd be on the scale of evil, right?
The poster above me suggested advertising is inherently evil and should be abolished, I was just countering that absolutist position.
I don't disagree that there are absolutely some awful ads out there, and that they should be regulated heavily. I've been getting so many ads for semaglutide on tiktok lately that seem designed to prey on people with eating disorders. Whoever is behind those is evil.
I don't disagree that there are absolutely some awful ads out there, and that they should be regulated heavily. I've been getting so many ads for semaglutide on tiktok lately that seem designed to prey on people with eating disorders. Whoever is behind those is evil.
> kinda getting mixed messages here
Did you really expect a corporation to be transparent and consistent with their messaging? It should be obvious by now that the word "open" in their name is pure marketing.
I'm surprised it took them this long to jump on the advertising money train. I wouldn't be surprised if they were already monetizing this in the background, and only decided to make it public now.
Did you really expect a corporation to be transparent and consistent with their messaging? It should be obvious by now that the word "open" in their name is pure marketing.
I'm surprised it took them this long to jump on the advertising money train. I wouldn't be surprised if they were already monetizing this in the background, and only decided to make it public now.
Cancelling my subscription today
There are no ads on subscriptions.. other than go.
So you want ads then?
Yeah, it’s a scandal that they’re depriving paying users of ads. ;)
Let the enshittification begin.
Then you move to the paid plan, then they move ads to the paid plan, then you move to the premium-extra plan, etc.
Then you move to the paid plan, then they move ads to the paid plan, then you move to the premium-extra plan, etc.
Not "ads" in the traditional sense but no one can tell me they won't use it to steer people toward whoever is paying their bills.
What would be the metric by which they bill for it?
Interesting, looking at it from that side. How does it work with traditional real world ads, billboards for example. I'd expect them to have a similar challenge. Not whether the ad was put in front of people, but the high level impact of the whole campaign.
How would advertisers know whether OpenAI even applied the ad to the paid for number of people's conversations, I don't know.
How would advertisers know whether OpenAI even applied the ad to the paid for number of people's conversations, I don't know.
This was posted in Show HN today [0]. Looks like queries just query ChatGPT themselves for whatever terms they want to track and then correlate revenue with that. But ChatGPT will probably do it like affiliate links, where there is a tracking parameter or cookie that identifies that it came from ChatGPT.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46642490
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46642490
The Enshittification curve is analagous to Moore's law.
Oh, this is so benign and appropriate. This will never escalate, and OpenAI is governed by strict privacy laws and audited by the public so we can trust they won't ever change their policy or have bias injected into their models.