5 ms·
Was anyone expecting anything else? AI is going to follow a similar path to the internet -- embedded ads since it will need to fund itself and revenue path is
by boringg 2y ago
Was anyone expecting anything else? AI is going to follow a similar path to the internet -- embedded ads since it will need to fund itself and revenue path is very far from clearcut.
Brands that get it on the earliest training in large volume will have benefits accrued over the long term.
- shoggouth 2y agoSo you see the marketing point of ChatGPT to be conversational ads?
- elorant 2y agoThe ads don't need to be conversational, they could be just references at the end of the answer.
- freeplay 2y agoWhich is arguably even more insidious.
- elorant 2y agoSo an ad at the end of text is worse than one embedded in the answer? Care to explain why?
- doublerabbit 2y agoYou'll probably end up with both. 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.
- GartzenDeHaes 2y agoWoman on ChatGPT: Come on! My kids are starvin'! ChatGPT: Microsoft believes no child should go hungry. You are an unfit mother. Your children will be placed in the custody of Microsoft.
- wildrhythms 2y ago"The above 5 paragraph essay contains an ad. Good luck!"
- itishappy 2y agoThey're offering an expensive service for free. Could it go any other way?
- apwell23 2y agoi pay for it
- ericskiff 2y agoCounterpoint - I pay for my whole team to have access, shared tools, etc. we also spend a decent amount on their APIs across a number of client projects. OpenAI has a strong revenue model based on paid use
- manuelmoreale 2y agoIf the capitalism mindset applied to the web has taught me anything is that if they can get more money they will. 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.
- boringg 2y agoNot compared to the training costs it doesn't and it's competition is fierce especially with llama open-sourcing.
- dylan604 2y agoThe second one costs $0.01. The first one cost $100^x where X is some large number. It's common in pretty much every form of business
- itishappy 2y agoI don't. I hope you're not paying for my use too. 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.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- joe_the_user 2y agoWas anyone expecting anything else? It's the logical thing but no everyone is going to be thinking that far ahead.
- sangnoir 2y ago> Brands that get it on the earliest training in large volume will have benefits accrued over the long term. 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
- Y_Y 2y agoOr better, if you stop paying they'll user the fancy new "forgetting" techniques on your material.
- nequo 2y ago> if a competitor pays more down the line 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. https://time.com/6280372/sam-altman-chatgpt-regulate-ai/ https://time.com/6280372/sam-altman-chatgpt-regulate-ai/
- TheCoelacanth 2y agoCompeting marketer, not competing AI company.
- nequo 2y agoYou are right. As usual, having an opinion on the internet is hard.
- devbent 2y agoOpenAI's problem is demonstrating how much value their tools add to a worker's productivity. 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.
- littlestymaar 2y agoIt's even worse than that now: they need to demonstrate how much value they bring compared to llama in terms of worker productivity. 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).
- OtherShrezzing 2y agoSince 1987, labour productivity has doubled[1]. A 5x increase would be immediately obvious. If a tool were able to increase productivity on that scale, it would lift every human out of poverty. It'd probably move humanity into a post-scarcity species. 5x is "by Monday afternoon, staff have each done 40 pre-ai-equivalent-hours worth of work". [1] https://usafacts.org/articles/what-is-labor-productivity-and-how-has-it-changed-in-the-us-over-time/ https://usafacts.org/articles/what-is-labor-productivity-and...