5 ms·

Not that I dislike criticizing OpenAI, but this seems to be a case of "your users are way dummer than you thought". Like the button says "allow it to be shown

by Sweepi 1y ago

Not that I dislike criticizing OpenAI, but this seems to be a case of "your users are way dummer than you thought". Like the button says "allow it to be shown in web searches". How can you misunderstand this?

simonw 1y ago
Here's the copy they used on that checkbox: Make this chat discoverable Allows it to be shown in web searches "Discoverable" is insider jargon. What does "web search" mean? Is that about whether I should be able to search for my chats in the app in the future? That language may seem obvious to those of us with a deep level of technical literacy - the denizens of Hacker News for example - but ChatGPT has over a billion users now. Try asking the less technical people in your life to describe the difference between a web site and an app, or what a URL is, or get them to describe what "web search" means and name some products in that category. You may be unpleasantly surprised. Meta AI gave people a "share" option with several levels of click though required to share a post and it was a fiasco: https://futurism.com/meta-ai-embarassing https://futurism.com/meta-ai-embarassing
- AlienRobot 1y ago
  Is there a legal reason for not writing "Let other people see your chats when searching on Google"
- ronsor 1y ago
  This is somewhat true, but we can't redefine every phrase from first principles whenever we use it. Web search has been a thing for decades now. People will simply have to learn things; we can't cater to an indefinite amount of ignorance.
  - jadamson 1y ago
    The word "public" is already used for this just about everywhere else.
    - saurik 1y ago
      FWIW, if it is "public", I'd think it would merely be something anyone could access if they already knew where it was, a concept that people experience often with "public" share URLs from numerous services; being "discoverable" is much stronger, as it tells us that random people are going to be able to search and, well, discover it.
      - ronsor 1y ago
        I mean, this isn't consistent with the usual definition of public, especially on sites that let you share content: * YouTube uses "public" for viewable by everyone and discoverable; for something that should only be accessible if the URL is shared, then YouTube uses the term "unlisted" * Facebook uses "public" similarly More generally, "to publish" (related to the adjective "public") means to make something generally known, as opposed to simply sharing with a closed group (even if they can share it too).
        saurik 1y ago
        OK, touche: I agree I'm wrong.
  - aniviacat 1y ago
    I'd like to add that the web search button in the ChatGPT interface is labled "Web search". And even when it starts searching on its own, it displays "searching the web...".
  - simonw 1y ago
    When you have a billion users I would argue that you do need to cater to an indefinite amount of ignorance, where "ignorance" here means wildly varying levels of technical experience.
    - ronsor 1y ago
      I agree with catering to your target audience in theory; however, at that scale, you're going to have people screw up anyway, no matter how many explanations, warnings, or prompts you add. I've shipped software which could be installed by clicking "Yes" twice, and somehow a non-negligible amount of people are still puzzled by the setup process. It's tiring.
      - varispeed 1y ago
        > and somehow a non-negligible amount of people are still puzzled by the setup process. It's tiring. Probably the process wasn't researched enough. You can do focus groups with customers or even hire members of the public for a discovery session and see how accessible process is and then refine. Technical teams are often severely biased and what they think should be easy and natural might be quite the opposite to other people who are not deeply involved with the domain.
        ronsor 1y ago
        The vast majority of users have had no problem. The installer consists of a "Yes (to accepting the license agreement)", waiting on a progress bar, and a "Yes (to starting the program)." It is like almost every installation wizard ever seen on a computer, except simpler and no bundled adware. When I've asked the ~5-10% of people who are confused, they've done at least one of the following: * Admit they clicked at random, and somehow closed the installer. * Gave up immediately and exited. * Complained there was no video tutorial for a sixty-second process. This kind of stuff has me at a loss for words, and overall, it makes me more jaded when producing software for the "average" end-user. There's only so much magic I can put in, and I already do a lot of work to make sure most stuff I make is as user-friendly as possible. Plenty of people don't actually read explanations, even a few words; you can't really help them at that point.
  - varispeed 1y ago
    ChatGPT is a website. "Web search" can literally mean that person will be able to find their chat through the search on the website and might assume it will not be available for everyone to see (because in their mind that would be too insane to be true). You can also take into account people who are literate but are neurodivergent. This options was too ambiguous and should have contained more context explaining what "Web search" actually means. You would still get people misunderstanding it. To me this looks like someone from marketing thought it would be cool to have conversations discoverable through search to "boost" awareness of the service, but in my opinion that is incredibly dumb and it is bizarre that nobody said "hang on a minute, isn't this stupid?" and it's gotten all the way to production.
    - mh- 1y ago
      You've omitted that the user found themselves in this flow by consciously clicking a button that says Share.
      - varispeed 1y ago
        "Share" where? This doesn't have the same meaning for everyone. If you come to use the feature with intent to share it with your friend, you don't assume you will be sharing it with the whole internet.
        mh- 1y ago
        At that point you haven't decided; that's the whole point of the selections that come after you've chosen to share it. >Make this chat discoverable (Allows it to be shown in web searches) If you don't want that behavior, not checking it is advisable. I'm no apologist for bad UI/UX; the tech industry is rife with it. I frequently mutter something like "how is the average person supposed to puzzle this out?" when I'm navigating insane flows on mainstream web apps. But, I'm with the other commenters who say we can't dumb everything down into nothingness, if we want anything resembling progress. This doesn't just extend to technology.
        1y ago
  - Eisenstein 1y ago
    Why is no one asking what purpose is served by indexing ChatGPT conversations? Why is this necessary? There is no option on your bank's website to 'make your finances discoverable' or your health insurance website to 'make your medical records discoverable'. It is not a matter of making it easier for people to understand what it is doing, it is a matter of thinking 'what could go wrong' and then determining if it is worth the risk to expose the option to do it.
    - simonw 1y ago
      "There is no option on your bank's website to 'make your finances discoverable'" Tell that to Venmo!
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- babyshake 1y ago
  Is the only/main use-case for this being that you are trying to do some type of SEO or marketing? Why else would you intentionally want your chats to shown in web searches? It does seem like this UI should be updated with an extra confirmation step warning you that your chat will be public and this should be thought of as a permanent decision as anything made public on the web long enough to be indexed is public forever.
  - Kim_Bruning 1y ago
    If you publish something on the web, the traditional expectation is that it shows up in web searches.
- hayleox 1y ago
  "Discoverable", I agree with you on; that should have been "public". And there probably should have been an "are you sure?" pop-up the first time you do this, explaining in a little bit more depth. But "web searches" seems like a pretty straightforward term. Even if you think it means ChatGPT's built-in search, that would still imply that other ChatGPT users could find it. "Allow", I feel, is a pretty strong word that implies someone else is getting access (because why would I need to give myself permission for something?).
  - justinsaccount 1y ago
    It says public. twice.
    - simonw 1y ago
      Here's the full text from that dialog: Public link created A public link to your chat has been created. Manage previously shared chats at any time via Settings. [ ] Make this chat discoverable Allows it to be shown in web searches https://chatgpt.com/share/ [ Copy link ] The use of the word "public" here is completely separate from the checkbox about making it discoverable. The whole point of this feature is to provide you with a URL you can share with someone to let you see the conversation. The issue of whether or not that should be included in public search indexes is incredibly technically dense. You have to understand what a search engine is, and that content can be deliberately excluded from search. If you know what a robots.txt file is that's easy, but most people have zero understanding of how search engines actually work.
      - Kim_Bruning 1y ago
        I suppose you have a point? Though this seems like a bit of a problem now that it's 2025. Seems like (it should be) basic civic knowledge that things you publish in public can be read by everyone. These days, publishing to web is the biggest "in public of all"... you can get potentially get more eyeballs than the front page of the New York Times, or if you put it up in lights on times square. Despite not being the biggest fan, I'm not sure that this is an OpenAI problem per-se. They offer the option of sharing your stuff in public, people use the option. The consequences should be common sense. You'd hope, at least.
- DonHopkins 1y ago
  "Make this chat discoverable" Much worse: "Discoverable" is legal jargon too. As if it wasn't already legally discoverable in a lawsuit. They're implicitly promising that you have some kind of client-llm privacy privilege if you don't check that.
- johnfn 1y ago
  This is after a user has clicked "Share", read a modal that says "This chat may contain private information" and then clicked "Create link".
- grodriguez100 1y ago
  I don’t think “web searches” requires “a deep level of technical literacy”…
- knowsuchagency 1y ago
  Suggested alternative: “Public see chat. Public find chat. No privacy. All will see!”
- deepsun 1y ago
  I agree in particular, but disagree in general. I prefer to live in the world when everything assumes people are just a little less ignorant than they really are. Kind of "aim higher". Otherwise everything becomes "aim lower", and we cannot have nice things. I particular I agree OpenAI should have a better UX, but also I want to expect people to actually learn what a "URL" is if we want to live in the future. They might just go and learn.
- karmakaze 1y ago
  Why are we 'lawyering' this instead of saying how they could/should improve it? All it needs is a small affordance: hover to get a clearer, longer description or something to that effect.
  - simonw 1y ago
    I think ditching the feature was the right move for them. I'm not sure you could fix this with copy - we all know that users don't read anything. The audience of people who genuinely do want their shared chats to also be indexed by Google is likely absolutely tiny. The audience of people who find such an option confusing and are likely to turn it on without understanding the consequences is proven to be pretty huge already.
- simonw 1y ago
  I expanded on this on my blog: https://simonwillison.net/2025/Aug/3/privacy-design/ https://simonwillison.net/2025/Aug/3/privacy-design/
- a2128 1y ago
  This is where genericide would be less confusing. "Show in google searches", gets the point across in 4 unambiguous words
  - sunaookami 1y ago
    And what about other search engines? ;)
ronsor 1y ago
The number one rule of software is that no matter how clear you make something, users will still screw up and blame you. Then other similarly ignorant people will agree with them.
- gundmc 1y ago
  This rings true. I feel this way about the incognito "tracking" lawsuit as well.
- simonw 1y ago
  ... or people will agree with them who aren't "ignorant", but have spent enough time in the usability trenches to empathize with how they could have made that mistake.
aresant 1y ago
"Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that." UX 101 taught by George Carlin

by Sweepi 1y ago

simonw 1y ago

Here's the copy they used on that checkbox: Make this chat discoverable Allows it to be shown in web searches "Discoverable" is insider jargon. What does "web search" mean? Is that about whether I should be able to search for my chats in the app in the future? That language may seem obvious to those of us with a deep level of technical literacy - the denizens of Hacker News for example - but ChatGPT has over a billion users now. Try asking the less technical people in your life to describe the difference between a web site and an app, or what a URL is, or get them to describe what "web search" means and name some products in that category. You may be unpleasantly surprised. Meta AI gave people a "share" option with several levels of click though required to share a post and it was a fiasco: https://futurism.com/meta-ai-embarassing https://futurism.com/meta-ai-embarassing

AlienRobot 1y ago
Is there a legal reason for not writing "Let other people see your chats when searching on Google"
ronsor 1y ago
This is somewhat true, but we can't redefine every phrase from first principles whenever we use it. Web search has been a thing for decades now. People will simply have to learn things; we can't cater to an indefinite amount of ignorance.
- jadamson 1y ago
  The word "public" is already used for this just about everywhere else.
  - saurik 1y ago
    FWIW, if it is "public", I'd think it would merely be something anyone could access if they already knew where it was, a concept that people experience often with "public" share URLs from numerous services; being "discoverable" is much stronger, as it tells us that random people are going to be able to search and, well, discover it.
    - ronsor 1y ago
      I mean, this isn't consistent with the usual definition of public, especially on sites that let you share content: * YouTube uses "public" for viewable by everyone and discoverable; for something that should only be accessible if the URL is shared, then YouTube uses the term "unlisted" * Facebook uses "public" similarly More generally, "to publish" (related to the adjective "public") means to make something generally known, as opposed to simply sharing with a closed group (even if they can share it too).
      - saurik 1y ago
        OK, touche: I agree I'm wrong.
- aniviacat 1y ago
  I'd like to add that the web search button in the ChatGPT interface is labled "Web search". And even when it starts searching on its own, it displays "searching the web...".
- simonw 1y ago
  When you have a billion users I would argue that you do need to cater to an indefinite amount of ignorance, where "ignorance" here means wildly varying levels of technical experience.
  - ronsor 1y ago
    I agree with catering to your target audience in theory; however, at that scale, you're going to have people screw up anyway, no matter how many explanations, warnings, or prompts you add. I've shipped software which could be installed by clicking "Yes" twice, and somehow a non-negligible amount of people are still puzzled by the setup process. It's tiring.
    - varispeed 1y ago
      > and somehow a non-negligible amount of people are still puzzled by the setup process. It's tiring. Probably the process wasn't researched enough. You can do focus groups with customers or even hire members of the public for a discovery session and see how accessible process is and then refine. Technical teams are often severely biased and what they think should be easy and natural might be quite the opposite to other people who are not deeply involved with the domain.
      - ronsor 1y ago
        The vast majority of users have had no problem. The installer consists of a "Yes (to accepting the license agreement)", waiting on a progress bar, and a "Yes (to starting the program)." It is like almost every installation wizard ever seen on a computer, except simpler and no bundled adware. When I've asked the ~5-10% of people who are confused, they've done at least one of the following: * Admit they clicked at random, and somehow closed the installer. * Gave up immediately and exited. * Complained there was no video tutorial for a sixty-second process. This kind of stuff has me at a loss for words, and overall, it makes me more jaded when producing software for the "average" end-user. There's only so much magic I can put in, and I already do a lot of work to make sure most stuff I make is as user-friendly as possible. Plenty of people don't actually read explanations, even a few words; you can't really help them at that point.
- varispeed 1y ago
  ChatGPT is a website. "Web search" can literally mean that person will be able to find their chat through the search on the website and might assume it will not be available for everyone to see (because in their mind that would be too insane to be true). You can also take into account people who are literate but are neurodivergent. This options was too ambiguous and should have contained more context explaining what "Web search" actually means. You would still get people misunderstanding it. To me this looks like someone from marketing thought it would be cool to have conversations discoverable through search to "boost" awareness of the service, but in my opinion that is incredibly dumb and it is bizarre that nobody said "hang on a minute, isn't this stupid?" and it's gotten all the way to production.
  - mh- 1y ago
    You've omitted that the user found themselves in this flow by consciously clicking a button that says Share.
    - varispeed 1y ago
      "Share" where? This doesn't have the same meaning for everyone. If you come to use the feature with intent to share it with your friend, you don't assume you will be sharing it with the whole internet.
      - mh- 1y ago
        At that point you haven't decided; that's the whole point of the selections that come after you've chosen to share it. >Make this chat discoverable (Allows it to be shown in web searches) If you don't want that behavior, not checking it is advisable. I'm no apologist for bad UI/UX; the tech industry is rife with it. I frequently mutter something like "how is the average person supposed to puzzle this out?" when I'm navigating insane flows on mainstream web apps. But, I'm with the other commenters who say we can't dumb everything down into nothingness, if we want anything resembling progress. This doesn't just extend to technology.
        1y ago
- Eisenstein 1y ago
  Why is no one asking what purpose is served by indexing ChatGPT conversations? Why is this necessary? There is no option on your bank's website to 'make your finances discoverable' or your health insurance website to 'make your medical records discoverable'. It is not a matter of making it easier for people to understand what it is doing, it is a matter of thinking 'what could go wrong' and then determining if it is worth the risk to expose the option to do it.
  - simonw 1y ago
    "There is no option on your bank's website to 'make your finances discoverable'" Tell that to Venmo!
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
babyshake 1y ago
Is the only/main use-case for this being that you are trying to do some type of SEO or marketing? Why else would you intentionally want your chats to shown in web searches? It does seem like this UI should be updated with an extra confirmation step warning you that your chat will be public and this should be thought of as a permanent decision as anything made public on the web long enough to be indexed is public forever.
- Kim_Bruning 1y ago
  If you publish something on the web, the traditional expectation is that it shows up in web searches.
hayleox 1y ago
"Discoverable", I agree with you on; that should have been "public". And there probably should have been an "are you sure?" pop-up the first time you do this, explaining in a little bit more depth. But "web searches" seems like a pretty straightforward term. Even if you think it means ChatGPT's built-in search, that would still imply that other ChatGPT users could find it. "Allow", I feel, is a pretty strong word that implies someone else is getting access (because why would I need to give myself permission for something?).
- justinsaccount 1y ago
  It says public. twice.
  - simonw 1y ago
    Here's the full text from that dialog: Public link created A public link to your chat has been created. Manage previously shared chats at any time via Settings. [ ] Make this chat discoverable Allows it to be shown in web searches https://chatgpt.com/share/ [ Copy link ] The use of the word "public" here is completely separate from the checkbox about making it discoverable. The whole point of this feature is to provide you with a URL you can share with someone to let you see the conversation. The issue of whether or not that should be included in public search indexes is incredibly technically dense. You have to understand what a search engine is, and that content can be deliberately excluded from search. If you know what a robots.txt file is that's easy, but most people have zero understanding of how search engines actually work.
    - Kim_Bruning 1y ago
      I suppose you have a point? Though this seems like a bit of a problem now that it's 2025. Seems like (it should be) basic civic knowledge that things you publish in public can be read by everyone. These days, publishing to web is the biggest "in public of all"... you can get potentially get more eyeballs than the front page of the New York Times, or if you put it up in lights on times square. Despite not being the biggest fan, I'm not sure that this is an OpenAI problem per-se. They offer the option of sharing your stuff in public, people use the option. The consequences should be common sense. You'd hope, at least.
DonHopkins 1y ago
"Make this chat discoverable" Much worse: "Discoverable" is legal jargon too. As if it wasn't already legally discoverable in a lawsuit. They're implicitly promising that you have some kind of client-llm privacy privilege if you don't check that.
johnfn 1y ago
This is after a user has clicked "Share", read a modal that says "This chat may contain private information" and then clicked "Create link".
grodriguez100 1y ago
I don’t think “web searches” requires “a deep level of technical literacy”…
knowsuchagency 1y ago
Suggested alternative: “Public see chat. Public find chat. No privacy. All will see!”
deepsun 1y ago
I agree in particular, but disagree in general. I prefer to live in the world when everything assumes people are just a little less ignorant than they really are. Kind of "aim higher". Otherwise everything becomes "aim lower", and we cannot have nice things. I particular I agree OpenAI should have a better UX, but also I want to expect people to actually learn what a "URL" is if we want to live in the future. They might just go and learn.
karmakaze 1y ago
Why are we 'lawyering' this instead of saying how they could/should improve it? All it needs is a small affordance: hover to get a clearer, longer description or something to that effect.
- simonw 1y ago
  I think ditching the feature was the right move for them. I'm not sure you could fix this with copy - we all know that users don't read anything. The audience of people who genuinely do want their shared chats to also be indexed by Google is likely absolutely tiny. The audience of people who find such an option confusing and are likely to turn it on without understanding the consequences is proven to be pretty huge already.
simonw 1y ago
I expanded on this on my blog: https://simonwillison.net/2025/Aug/3/privacy-design/ https://simonwillison.net/2025/Aug/3/privacy-design/
a2128 1y ago
This is where genericide would be less confusing. "Show in google searches", gets the point across in 4 unambiguous words
- sunaookami 1y ago
  And what about other search engines? ;)

ronsor 1y ago

The number one rule of software is that no matter how clear you make something, users will still screw up and blame you. Then other similarly ignorant people will agree with them.

gundmc 1y ago
This rings true. I feel this way about the incognito "tracking" lawsuit as well.
simonw 1y ago
... or people will agree with them who aren't "ignorant", but have spent enough time in the usability trenches to empathize with how they could have made that mistake.

aresant 1y ago

"Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that." UX 101 taught by George Carlin