13 ms·
Walmart: ChatGPT checkout converted 3x worse than website
- kvisner 8mo agoThat doesn't seem terribly surprising, a human can quickly look through a grid of shirts to find one they like. ChatGPT would be guessing what they might want and the human would probably get a bad experience there with some regularity.
- dude250711 8mo agoThey have a solution and are trying to find a problem.
- charcircuit 8mo agoWhat if they made instant checkout actually instant? You ask ChatGPT to setup a website and it instantly purchases web hosting and sets up the website there. You can't beat a 100% conversion rate by actually checking out instantly. If you didn't like that host you can ask it to find it alternative and ChatGPT would automatically attempt a refund and then purchase from someone else.
- LoganDark 8mo agoI'd become afraid to ask that bot anything, not knowing what it would automatically try to purchase for me. Paying for the bot itself is already a lot: $20/mo to $200/mo or more.
- lukan 8mo ago20$ for a personal assistant is not much, but no, I surely don't trust those assistants to access my money.
- LoganDark 8mo agoI pay $200/mo for one assistant, from one company. The number of other companies that want the same kind of money for other assistants is increasing. I wish I could pay $200/mo and get all the companies.
- charcircuit 8mo agoThat's why it would be important for the partners to support refunding.
- TZubiri 8mo agoWhat are we talking about here? ChatGPT as an interface to buy groceries? Or ChatGPT as an interface to build a website. I fail to see how these would be related other than using a specific technology
- wrqvrwvq 8mo ago> Because most people can't read. Wait for agents generating personalized websites/self checkout apps. > You ask ChatGPT to setup a website and it instantly purchases web hosting and sets up the website Multiple comments deflecting from the original shopping conversion failure to recommend ... building a whole new website (with hosting for some reason?). W/o bothering to look through commenter history, one has to assume there are a lot of chatbots on this site or else the people using this stuff have been lobotomized. I'm sure it'll start happening too, and when that fails, the bots will, i don't know, invent a new macarena. We are definitely headed for an irredeemably stupid future.
- firefoxd 8mo agoThe experience is a lot like when you are talking with a friend, then they decide to ask siri or google a question using voice. The result is always imprecise. Meaning they either have to repeat their query, or end up typing it anyway. If you want to buy a Walmart product, the easiest way is to go to Walmart. Why add an imprecise middle man in between?
- __alexs 8mo ago(Good) E-commerce has been ruthlessly optimised to get shoppers to products they'll actually buy and then remove all distractions from buying. A chat interface is just fundamentally incompatible with this. The agent makes it too easy to ask questions and comparison shop.
- TZubiri 8mo agoIt depends on the product, if we are talking commodities or mass produced products like groceries, sure. If we are talking custom products or complex appliances that need a lot of guidance, then maybe chat interface is appropriate.
- pjc50 8mo agoThe problem is that the chat transcript is legally binding. If the chatbot makes incorrect statements which the customer relies on for their complex purchase, then you're going to have to refund them. https://www.bbc.co.uk/travel/article/20240222-air-canada-chatbot-misinformation-what-travellers-should-know https://www.bbc.co.uk/travel/article/20240222-air-canada-cha...
- TZubiri 8mo agoWhen comparing a sales chatbot agent with a sales human agent, there is no difference. A chatbot answer would be no more legally binding than a human's answer. The actual reduction in liability would come down to who can make less mistakes, the fact that the mistakes are or aren't legally binding does not change the decision to put a chatbot. In fact I think you are plain wrong, it's standard case law that errors in pricing are not binding, if you find a wheel of 50kg cheese priced at 30$ (the price of a kg of cheese), then the supermarket is not obligated to honour that price, they obviously mispriced the cheese.
- bashkiddie 8mo agoWhen I shop for special hardware (e.g. bicycle shift gear) it is usually underspecified. If the information does not exist in the text block, a chat bot is of no use.
- hexasquid 8mo agoLast year they couldn't draw fingers on hands properly, this year they can't convert at checkouts, I wonder what they'll be failing to do a year from now.
- bashkiddie 8mo agoNext years headline will be > AI accounts for 90% of accidents while only accounting for 1% of traffic
- stavros 8mo agoWaymo cars cause 90% fewer accidents than human drivers: https://abit.ee/en/cars/waymo-robotaxi-autonomous-driving-safety-alphabet-crashes-self-driving-car-en https://abit.ee/en/cars/waymo-robotaxi-autonomous-driving-sa...
- StilesCrisis 8mo agoYeah, but consumers can't buy Waymos. They can get dangerously unsafe Teslas and pretend it's the same tech.
- Lerc 8mo agoIs their issue that ChatGPT served their customers more than it served them?
- arlcode 8mo agoTo early to say that but it's certainly a part of the equation all vendors are currently looking at. And given the past few decades there is no reason to not try to do that.
- d--b 8mo agoThat's definitely it. This probably means that OpenAI et al are fine-tuning salesman-like LLMs to "fix" that problem. Can't wait for the future.
- nicbou 8mo agoIn due time it will serve ChatGPT more than either
- casey2 8mo agoBecause most people can't read. Wait for agents generating personalized websites/self checkout apps.
- janalsncm 8mo agoThis is from one of the links in the article > Why this is happening. Two forces are slowing agentic commerce, according to Leigh McKenzie, director of online visibility at Semrush: infrastructure and trust. Real-time catalog normalization across tens of millions of SKUs is a decade-scale problem Google already solved with Merchant Center, and consumers still default to checkout flows they trust — Apple Pay, Google Wallet, and Amazon one-click. It turns out when you step outside of “hard tech” problems like building GPT6 there are all of these details others have solved already. E-commerce has been optimized to the last decimal point for the last 30 years. OpenAI is new to it, and if I had to guess, not that interested in getting good at it.
- petcat 8mo ago> not that interested in getting good at it I think they're interested in getting good at it. They just don't want to put in the human time and effort to do so. They expect their many failures and short-comings to be shored up by continuous model training. But that, of course, means that in the meantime it will suck and nobody will use it.
- TeMPOraL 8mo agoI think they're operating beyond their current (human) capacity, trying to test out too many things at a time. But a dreamer in me entertains another idea: perhaps they're just holding back, because they realize that actually succeeding at this will instantly kill (or at least mortally wound) e-commerce as we know it. (This is a more narrow version of my belief that general AI tools like LLMs fundamentally don't fit as additions to products, but rather subsume products, and this makes them an existential threat to the software industry. Not to software or computing, just to all the software vendors, whose job is to slice off pieces of computational universe, put them in boxes to prevent interoperability, and give each a name so it's a "product" that can be sold or rented).
- NicoJuicy 8mo ago> perhaps they're just holding back Considering the money they need, they over promise and under deliver.
- fennecfoxy 8mo agoNot really many details... Perhaps clickthrough is worse because there are fewer dark patterns involved and people are mostly just browsing and occasionally buying only what they need. They didn't really seem to specify the "why" of it with any research. And weird that OAI wasn't supporting them to see wha the issue was.
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- keiferski 8mo agoI don’t trust AI bots to access my wallet. Not sure I ever will. I sort of trust them to make product recommendations, but at best I will only open a link they suggest and buy the product there.
- everdrive 8mo ago>I sort of trust them to make product recommendations Never, ever.
- keiferski 8mo agoI trust them as much as any other online source, which is to say, sort of, but only as a starting point for research. Do you have a better alternative?
- everdrive 8mo agoIt depends. For home improvement projects, you can see what tools people are using. If a home repair channel is trustworthy, that may be a good start. General market research can help as well. For instance, post-China-buyout Craftsman should be avoided. For nearly anything else, it really depends. Name-brand electronics are usually safe unless they're small items (eg, power adapters, USB cords. Batteries are nearly impossible to purchase online without getting ripped off.) For clothing, I would just generally recommend only buying from thrift stores. For a lot of physical items (eg: door knobs, fuel hoses, etc.) it is actually quite difficult to purchase online. In person, we can tell a lot about quality just by touching the object with your hands. (eg: a flimsy shelf is not self-evident online, but is obvious in the hardware store.) I suppose that's a long-winded way of saying that nearly every category of item requires its own strategy. For a brief period consumers were winning the information war and you could just go to Amazon, read the reviews, and get a superior product for cheap. We're now in a modern-but-old-fashioned situation. It's quite difficult to know if you're going to get ripped off, and you're forced to rely on more blunt heuristics. (eg: trust specific brands, buy things in person, etc.) None of these are perfect, but they are quickly becoming the best of some bad options.
- 8mo ago
- zmmmmm 8mo ago> Walmart will embed its own chatbot, Sparky, inside ChatGPT. Users will log into Walmart, sync carts across platforms, and complete purchases within Walmart’s system. The enshittification is upon us.
- netsharc 8mo agoHah, Clippy's cousin Sparky: every once in a while after ChatGPT answers a question it'll say "Looks like you still have stuff in your WalMart cart. Would you like me to complete that checkout for you? Also, WalMart-brand diapers is on offer this week, shall I add that to your cart?"
- DANmode 8mo ago“You are an unfit mother.” https://youtu.be/lajnHjRp9Z0 https://youtu.be/lajnHjRp9Z0
- qoez 8mo agoIt's probably stuff like this along with investor pressure that will make AI companies slowly make their AIs more profit maximizing (and the long term reason ilya etc was so against even going down that path)
- brador 8mo agoOriginal AI was sourced from university level text books, stack, wiki. Average iq around 140. The latest AI is trained on the average citizens social media output. Iq 90. That’s why AI seemed smart. The bar will not be raised again. We’re cooked.
- _1 8mo agosource?
- asimpletune 8mo agoIsn’t there already a much older rule that predicts this? Your product has to be a 10x improvement over the incumbent to be competitive. In AI speak it would be the “extra-bitter” lesson I guess? You need to add 10x resources to beat a product that’s already solved with mature tech.
- cmiles8 8mo agoThe idea that AI will suddenly solve e-commerce demonstrates a lack of understanding on everything that has happened in this space over the last 25 years. There’s a lot of this going on in AI at the moment. New folks come in thinking they have a magic solution and then produce a total train wreck as it turns out domain expertise is still a thing.
- RugnirViking 8mo agoWhat would it even mean for an ai to solve e-commerce? Is that a claim made here? Is e-commerce a problem to be solved? It seems like e-commerce does just fine, if plagued by poor quality product, fake reviews, and relentless borderline fraudulent marketing. Was anyone suggesting AI would help with it? It seems from the article that Walmart (presumably experts in e-commerce) themselves willingly collaborated with open ai. Especially at Walmart's level, what even was the theory? In any case. It seems that despite this poor result, Walmart decided to essentially go ahead anyway and partner with open ai to put their "own chatbot" inside the open ai app?
- cmiles8 8mo agoWell everyone is desperate to show that they’ve built and deployed some AI thing. Few have done so and demonstrated meaningful value that justifies all the expense of doing it.
- sumtechguy 8mo agoThat is spot on. They forgot the first thing. Why would a customer use it and does it help them buy more stuff so I make more money? Just putting an AI in there for the heck of it is doomed to failure. I can think of a few different ways AI could be used inside a shopping app especially at the size of a company like walmart. Such as 'hey try our picknick planner?', 'need some sort of DIY project? Ask our bot for help'. Guide the user on what they need for a project and hey look here we have that stuff in stock at your local store today. The cart experience one of the last places I would put an AI. At that point the customer is 'done' and they want out.
- FlowPagesVael 8mo ago[flagged]
- blitzar 8mo agois 3x worse like a 300% decrease?
- phyzome 8mo agoYeah, unclear what they mean. 1/3 the conversion rate, maybe?
- maxbeech 8mo ago[dead]
- pluc 8mo agoYou can either have AI be honest or AI become a marketing tool. The two are fundamentally incompatible. You won't get it to push your products when users ask what's the best XYZ - either because it'll be too honest to lie or because it'll be too expensive for you.
- sumeno 8mo agoConsidering you can't have chat bots be honest even if you don't make them marketing tools I suspect I know which way companies are going to go
- Zambyte 8mo agoHonesty implies intent. People can use LLMs to amplify dishonest messages (see: marketing), but I don't think it's reasonable to claim that LLMs are lying to describe when they produce incorrect information against the will of both the creator and operator.
- recursive 8mo agoI read it a different way. There's less upside to an LLM being "honest", since they're already making false statements regardless of intent. They're already non-trustworthy. So there's less to lose by being marketing channels.
- pluc 8mo agoWe'll see once they pipe ads in there if they'll limit themselves to relevant ads or of they'll toss all pretense of caring out the window
- skywhopper 8mo agoLLMs do not have a concept of “honesty”. Nothing they say is honest or dishonest. Anyway, “What’s the best XYZ?” is not a question that has a definitive answer for most XYZs.
- ZiiS 8mo agoHow many people tried for the novalty with no intention of purchasing? It being a thousand times worse conversion wouldn't matter if they are additional sales???
- Ajedi32 8mo agoYeah this article is very lacking in detail. If they A-B tested it though (which seems like an extremely basic thing to try before making a decision like this) I think that would satisfy your objection.
- leontloveless 8mo ago[dead]
- bilekas 8mo agoChatGPT Checkout, a solution looking for a problem. Why would anyone have an extra layer of friction too where things could go wrong, where handing over payment details in another chain. Just let me buy my stuff in peace. Shopping is not the 'killer app' for GenAI.
- no_shadowban_2 8mo ago[dead]
- baggachipz 8mo agoWhen you're a solution in search of a problem, you'll try to shoehorn your "solution" into everything. "This isn't what I wanted to buy, I said my feet are a size 10 and these aren't even shoes!" "You're absolutely right! Shoes go on feet, and each of your 10 feet could wear shoes. Would you like me to research shoes and purchase them for you?"
- dylan604 8mo agoJust because you're not the target audience doesn't mean there's not a real target audience. There a people today learning to use an LLM instead of an actual search engine. For these types of people whatever happens outside of the LLM app is invisible to them. The social media apps did similar where they started letting people purchase directly within the app. People started looking at these shops rather than doing searches for it elsewhere. Buying things on a social media app is crazy to me, but I don't use the social media apps. Buying things from an LLM app seems crazy to you, (because it's new and it's borked is fixable), but to people that first turn to their LLM app of choice that decision isn't so crazy.
- hattmall 8mo agoSocial media apps generally opened up new markets though of their existing user bases as sellers. Perhaps chatgpt could know everything in your house, if you don't actually use it, and pair you with a neighbor that needs it!
- 8mo ago
- maxothex 8mo ago[dead]
- hownottowrite 8mo agoI’ve been running e-commerce systems for 30 years (tech, marketing, etc). This was going to fail from the start for one reason: intent. Most people using AI chat are exploring ideas and solutions. They’re doodling, not shopping. Or in old timey parlance, they’re looky-loos or tire kickers at best. Anyone who’s had to justify ad spend in e-commerce can tell you that some sources produce huge traffic with absolutely terrible conversion. Reddit and Pinterest pretty much blow for this reason, with limited exceptions. It’s also why TikTok and other influencer platforms really work. Conversion requires a mental shift from discovery to demand. Also, really hate summaries like this without the actual source so here are the main points from the actual source (WIRED https://archive.is/7DuEV https://archive.is/7DuEV): 1. Instant Checkout inside ChatGPT performed poorly, with conversion about one-third of Walmart’s normal site. 2. The experience failed largely because it forced single-item purchases instead of letting users build a cart. 3. Walmart is shifting to embedding its own assistant, Sparky, inside ChatGPT and keeping checkout on its own system. 4. ChatGPT is still valuable because it’s driving significantly more new customer traffic than search. 5. Purchases that did work were mostly practical, problem-solving items like supplements and tools. 6. Fully automated “agentic shopping” is still unlikely in the near term because people want control over purchases. 7. OpenAI is moving away from in-chat checkout and focusing on helping users research while merchants handle transactions. In short, AI is useful for discovery, but traditional e-commerce flows still outperform it at closing sales.
- martinald 8mo agoWould be interesting to know for other retailers though and how much of this is down to what Walmart sells? I'm confused by the comment that it failed because it forced single item purchases. Most of my "ecommerce" use is researching and buying one item at a time.
- TeMPOraL 8mo agoIt's a failure for e-commerce vendors because it's a spectacular success for shoppers, and the relationship between sellers and buyers is almost always adversarial.
- 8mo ago
- holografix 8mo agoWow the sceptics really came out in force for this one. I’m currently using Gemini to research components for a remote controlled plane. I have the frame of the plane and now need to buy correctly specced servo motors, an engine, battery, etc etc. It has saved me so much time and educated me tremendously on how the different components interact and the options available. If I could just press “buy” from within Gemini and pay via Google Pay (or better still, Apple Pay) I’d do it in a heartbeat. If ChatGPT can do this today, I need to try it.
- y-curious 8mo agoThe entire point of shoehorning AI into everything is to make people stop thinking for themselves and allowing a corporation to do it for them. “””If I could just press “buy” from within Gemini and pay via Google Pay (or better still, Apple Pay) I’d do it in a heartbeat””” Yeah, until that becomes enshittified and you don’t notice because you no longer do research on components.
- cdelsolar 8mo agoso what, i want to build a little remote controlled plane that works
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- WarmWash 8mo ago>...is to make people stop thinking for themselves and allowing a corporation to do it for them. Insert that "always has been" meme. Microsoft was brought to court in the 90's for shoehorning in Internet Explorer.
- nope1000 8mo agoI would assume the average purchase in Walmart is significantly more low-tech than this though
- benh2477 8mo ago[flagged]
- josefritzishere 8mo agoLook, another thing AI is empirically bad at. Can we dispense with cramming AI into every product and service and just use it where it's useful? It's very wasteful and an utterly obnoxious experience for users.
- epsteingpt 8mo agoStores converted better than eCommerce for a long time and adoption was slow. The next generation will shop in a different way, if it's better, and the change will be gradual as well. Adoption takes time.
- bigfishrunning 8mo agoThat was only true because the internet wasn't completely saturated -- many people didn't get online until the late 2000s [0]. This was a major barrier to entry keeping brick-and-mortar stores ahead. The only thing holding back "Agentic Purchasing" is convenience. It's much easier to do a conventional search and click "Buy" then it is to have a conversation with some chatbot. If I walk into a store, most of the time I don't want to talk to a salesperson, I just want to grab the thing I came for and leave; this is also true for online shopping. The chatbot is another barrier to the purchase. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Internet_usage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Internet_usage
- sarbanharble 8mo agoThe shift to AI is currently a boon to consumer. Penny’s has obviously done this, as they have had a $119 Man U jersey ring up at $19 for a week now, with many of my mates having bought one. It’s unbelievable that anyone thinks gutting human oversight builds a better company.
- npilk 8mo agoSo they are comparing to the conversion rate of people who click on a link in the chat and go to Walmart's website to view the product? Wouldn't that be a really strong intent-to-buy signal? The better comparison might be conversion rate for those who searched on Walmart.com vs those who searched within ChatGPT. Or maybe that is what they're comparing and I misunderstood?
- Kuyawa 8mo agoWhere everybody sees failure I see a trillion dollar business, a faceless ai shop that merges all shops around your location. "I need mayo, ketchup, mustard and ground beef" "Here is a list of products with prices ... proceed to pay $25 (yes/no)" Yes "Your card has been charged. Delivery will knock on your door in 7 minutes" I'll code that app in one month, what's there to lose?
- porridgeraisin 8mo agoThis exists in india already The food delivery apps (zomato, Swiggy) support "agentic shopping" through an MCP server. You can reserve a small amount of money in UPI apps that doesn't need any approval to be debited (only by a specific merchant). Razorpay which is a payment gateway has an MCP server So you can add razorpay in your app, and claude can pay. Claude can access the Swiggy MCP server and search using natural language there. The incentive for the food delivery app to participate in this is better targeted ads.
- dessimus 8mo agoI highly doubt that a consumer would see any financial benefit from this. Sure different grocery stores use different products as loss leaders, but the trade off is time, so rather than the cost of having one person go to one store and by X number of items, we're sending either one person to three stores for ~X/3 items, or three separate people to three stores. All of which will take more total time than 1 store, which puts more resource demand and will cost more to the consumer. Also, it would rather be in the faceless ai shop's interest to arbitrage orders, always show the "middle" price but use the cheapest one for orders.
- ta9000 8mo agoI’m shocked, shocked that an SEO website would say ChatGPT bad.
- bgirard 8mo agoI think they're thinking about this wrong. I get all my groceries deliver to my doorstep via Walmart delivery pass. The thing I'm really missing is having AI curate meal planning to my family's preferences. I already feed ChatGPT my family' preferences (e.g. Kid A doesn't eat X Y Z and liked meal A B C, kid B likes ...) and ChatGPT is helping me build meal plans. With my preferences we can quickly nail down a meal plan for the week. The slowest part of my meal planning is going through Walmart's slow site where each page load is 2-3 seconds and it takes several page load per item. Once it can translate my meal plan into a grocery checkout from Walmart I'm all set.
- rawbot 8mo agoSo we need a Walmart MCP then...
- justacatbot 8mo ago[flagged]
- michaelksaleme 8mo ago[flagged]
- runako 8mo agoThis partnership was doomed to fail. Walmart does not, over 10 years after they were released, even accept the contactless payment systems in common use. Instead, they push their in-house version in part so they can capture the relevant customer data. And we're meant to believe that Walmart planned to outsource the entire series of touchpoints represented by the discovery & checkout process? Yeah, okay. This was never going to be more than an experiment for Walmart.
- exabrial 8mo agoThe first comment is probably spot on. I'll add one thing: Speed is your greatest feature. LLMs are slow. Loading 450mb of javascript to the client just to buy a bag of Doritos is slow. Server side rendering owns here.
- levmiseri 8mo agoThis seems to be comparing apples to oranges. The intent of the users inside ChatGPT and on the website would be vastly different. Comparing them doesn't make much sense sans other variables (= better understanding the intent)
- oofbaroomf 8mo agoChatGPT recommended me some good hard drives for price per TB, and one particularly cheap one had direct checkout with Walmart, so I tried it, because why not? It let me get all the way to the payment step before it told me it was out of stock. Walmart's website told me it was out of stock when I decided to click on the link. This is probably part of why it doesn't convert.
- jms703 8mo agoThis is my experience also, when trying chatgpt to purchase.
- alex43578 8mo agoThat's typical of my experience with all of these stock-aggregator sites. Either the best price is some dodgy or outright fake storefront, the item's OOS from the real vendor, or the price is out of date. Trying to buy things like GPUs or SSDs are a joke. I really wish even one vendor would just implement an actual waiting list, locked to an account with a verified address and purchase history. I'm fine to wait for my purchase, but having to race bots for a lottery ticket purchase is a pain.
- jborden13 8mo agoSounds like an opportunity for a live inventory context layer before an LLM makes recommendations
- Plutarco_ink 8mo ago[dead]
- mosaibah 8mo ago[dead]
- Terr_ 8mo agoI fear "discovery" will end up being a corporate euphemism for "shilling", worse than any search-engine manipulation since it has the potential to be so much subtler, pervasive, and parasocial. The kind of microcosm parodied by The Truman Show is becoming plausible, at least digitally.
- MeetingsBrowser 8mo agoThis is a great summary of the current AI era. Walmart's goal is to sell more things. Using AI did not help to achieve that goal. Is this a failure? No, we need to define a new metric based on what AI can do. Same thing with software. Are we shipping better software to happier customers? No? Better measure token usage, number of lines changed, and "developer velocity" instead.
- 6thbit 8mo agoEither wrong or insufficient metric. They could be converting on products the user didn’t even begin with an intention to buy, which would be impossible to compare with their existing flows.
- jee599 8mo ago[dead]
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- black_puppydog 8mo agoPersonally, I cancelled my subscription the day that they announced there would be ads in ChatGPT. Not that I was surprised on that day. I find it kind of fascinating seeing people now debate the ins and outs of just exactly how useful the ads/affiliate schemes inside the chatbot are. Pretty much in the same way that I'm fascinated about people debating the quality of ads shown in their browser while I've been using ad blockers for forever now and cannot imagine seeing the web without them.
- rambojohnson 8mo agoenshitification at scale, propped up by noise/water-pollution datacenters the size of several football fields, but all we care about is the price of RAM. cheers!
- cat-turner 8mo agoThey don't want complete shopping automation because if it really worked, people would buy LESS. Walmarts in person and online storefront is engineered to get people to buy things they didn't come in for. Upselling is programmed at every step.
- cat-turner 8mo agoA lot of people don't know this, but businesses pay (in terms of providing Walmart more inventory) for access to specific shelves. Their thinking that better positioning on the shelf leads to more sales. There are entire businesses built on optimizing endcaps.
- jwpapi 8mo agoI think the issue is that on Walmart they can upsell more. It’s really gonna be tough for ChatGPT to beat that, but arguably its better for customer. So Open AI could just go for the Amazon Model, where merchants will make less money, but are eventually forced to sell through
- thestack_ai 8mo ago[dead]
- castigatio 8mo agoWow - an open ended discursive AI that can help you refine your needs doesn't convert as frequently as a website promoting products? Go figure. This is ultimately a win for shoppers because AI gets in the way of the impulse to buy retailers spend so much money planting in people's minds.
- vaibhaxii 8mo agoOpenAI's focus imo is to be the platform where ecommerce demand originates; not to be an enabler for incumbent like Walmart/Amazon. Said another way, OpenAI doesn't care about Walmart.