20 ms·

Unpopular opinion: I think users should be free to choose.

placebo 3mo ago
If you are implying that this is the case because this is also how leaders are selected in a democracy, then of course the sarcasm is noted - but here's my real unpopular opinion: Democracy only has value when the majority of voters are not morons. Unfortunately, I can't come up with a better solution - maybe create a model for which there is a wide agreement on and let it rule?
- olalonde 3mo ago
  I simply meant that users ought to be free to choose between a product that offers a free ad-supported tier and one that is paid and ad-free. And I do believe that letting morons choose for themselves is the lesser evil.
- TeMPOraL 3mo ago
  Here's my real unpopular opinion: the actual value of democracy is bloodless transition of power. Everything else is window dressing.
  - pigpop 3mo ago
    That's not a unique attribute of democracy nor is it guaranteed. Any system of government that hasn't succumbed to corruption and factionalism will have clear rules of succession. Even an absolute monarchy can go on for many generations without bloodshed.
    - lotsofpulp 3mo ago
      Succession in monarchies is not a transition of power comparable to a democratic vote changing leaders every few years.
    - TeMPOraL 3mo ago
      The point is that frequent transitions seem to incentivise rhetorical instead of literal backstabbing.
- oneeyedpigeon 3mo ago
  I prefer "Democracy only has value when the majority of voters are informed". This covers your case, but it also redresses the balance to shift blame away from everyday people and onto society as a whole.
  - placebo 3mo ago
    Isn't society made up of everyday people? While I agree that the public being informed is a mutual responsibility, placing that responsibility on the government (which in many cases has plenty of incentive to keeping people ignorant) will not work either.
    - oneeyedpigeon 3mo ago
      > placing that responsibility on the government will not work either. I agree, but a) the responsibility is on us all: citizens, government, and the media b) we can definitely introduce regulations that force government to be more open, etc.
- pigpop 3mo ago
  It doesn't really matter what the system of government is, power-hungry psychopaths will always attempt to game the system in their favour. The history of governance is just a long arms race of inventing new systems to thwart them while they do everything they can to corrupt those systems and concentrate power in themselves. It's like fending off griefers in an online game, there's an endless supply of them, they don't care about the rules or the game, they just want to dominate other players for their own perverse enjoyment. The only lasting solution would either be some form of genetic modification to remove that trait from humanity entirely or some perfect way to identify them but you'd have to be extremely careful that they didn't gain access to and corrupt those things before they were completely eliminated.
Nurw 3mo ago
Ah, so you are against ads! At least the way ads are today. With that I mean that the way ads today mostly focus on manipulating over informing is effectively hindering your ability to choose.
- disgruntledphd2 3mo ago
  > Ah, so you are against ads! At least the way ads are today. With that I mean that the way ads today mostly focus on manipulating over informing is effectively hindering your ability to choose. Speaking as someone who worked in advertising for a looooonnnngggg time, there are three ways that ads seem to work (above a randomised holdout). 1. The ad is something that the person actually wants, and they then convert. 2. The ad is something that the person was about to buy, and they convert. 3. The ad is part of a long running campaign that shifts (some) consumer's behaviour over time (ads for Coke etc fall in this category). Ads aren't magic, and most people ignore them most of the time. It turns out that enough people don't that they can be profitable sometimes, but mostly that's just targeting people with more money than sense. This HN notion that ads shape everyone's behaviour (except me, obviously) is so disconnected from my experience that I am sometimes confused by it.
  - hlynurd 3mo ago
    A single polluting factory won't ruin the lungs of a single person, but thousands of factories will have an unhealthy effect on a population.
  - guelo 3mo ago
    Which category is it when the user asks which is the best brand for the thing they want to buy and the platform lies to them and recommends the brand that paid the most money?
    - fwn 3mo ago
      Concealed advertising is highly problematic and deserves discussion. It is not, however, what OpenAI introduced in the article above. Their current ad formats are, apparently, transparently labeled and clearly separated. It is very likely that this will adjust in the future. Just look at how indistinguishable from organic content some prominent ad placements have become over time. But: There is merit in discussing the actual product, not some hypothetical version of it. If we do discuss hypotheticals, we should make that explicit. This also helps the whole debate (and therefore, I believe, ad critics): arguments grounded in reality are usually far more effective than those that aren't. ... And there might come a point where OpenAI introduces some kind of native ad format. We would be well advised to preserve our credibility for that discussion. edit: Paid content in the organic LLM output is a current problem already. It ist just not what this announcement is about.
lII1lIlI11ll 3mo ago
> Unpopular opinion: I think users should be free to choose. There is nothing unpopular about your opinion - silent majority definitely wants ad-subsidized free tiers (that is why they are so popular and ads are not banned anywhere in the western world), it is just that arguing with radicals on HN or reddit is exhausting and a waste of time in general.

If you are implying that this is the case because this is also how leaders are selected in a democracy, then of course the sarcasm is noted - but here's my real unpopular opinion: Democracy only has value when the majority of voters are not morons. Unfortunately, I can't come up with a better solution - maybe create a model for which there is a wide agreement on and let it rule?

olalonde 3mo ago
I simply meant that users ought to be free to choose between a product that offers a free ad-supported tier and one that is paid and ad-free. And I do believe that letting morons choose for themselves is the lesser evil.
TeMPOraL 3mo ago
Here's my real unpopular opinion: the actual value of democracy is bloodless transition of power. Everything else is window dressing.
- pigpop 3mo ago
  That's not a unique attribute of democracy nor is it guaranteed. Any system of government that hasn't succumbed to corruption and factionalism will have clear rules of succession. Even an absolute monarchy can go on for many generations without bloodshed.
  - lotsofpulp 3mo ago
    Succession in monarchies is not a transition of power comparable to a democratic vote changing leaders every few years.
  - TeMPOraL 3mo ago
    The point is that frequent transitions seem to incentivise rhetorical instead of literal backstabbing.
oneeyedpigeon 3mo ago
I prefer "Democracy only has value when the majority of voters are informed". This covers your case, but it also redresses the balance to shift blame away from everyday people and onto society as a whole.
- placebo 3mo ago
  Isn't society made up of everyday people? While I agree that the public being informed is a mutual responsibility, placing that responsibility on the government (which in many cases has plenty of incentive to keeping people ignorant) will not work either.
  - oneeyedpigeon 3mo ago
    > placing that responsibility on the government will not work either. I agree, but a) the responsibility is on us all: citizens, government, and the media b) we can definitely introduce regulations that force government to be more open, etc.
pigpop 3mo ago
It doesn't really matter what the system of government is, power-hungry psychopaths will always attempt to game the system in their favour. The history of governance is just a long arms race of inventing new systems to thwart them while they do everything they can to corrupt those systems and concentrate power in themselves. It's like fending off griefers in an online game, there's an endless supply of them, they don't care about the rules or the game, they just want to dominate other players for their own perverse enjoyment. The only lasting solution would either be some form of genetic modification to remove that trait from humanity entirely or some perfect way to identify them but you'd have to be extremely careful that they didn't gain access to and corrupt those things before they were completely eliminated.

Nurw 3mo ago

Ah, so you are against ads! At least the way ads are today. With that I mean that the way ads today mostly focus on manipulating over informing is effectively hindering your ability to choose.

disgruntledphd2 3mo ago
> Ah, so you are against ads! At least the way ads are today. With that I mean that the way ads today mostly focus on manipulating over informing is effectively hindering your ability to choose. Speaking as someone who worked in advertising for a looooonnnngggg time, there are three ways that ads seem to work (above a randomised holdout). 1. The ad is something that the person actually wants, and they then convert. 2. The ad is something that the person was about to buy, and they convert. 3. The ad is part of a long running campaign that shifts (some) consumer's behaviour over time (ads for Coke etc fall in this category). Ads aren't magic, and most people ignore them most of the time. It turns out that enough people don't that they can be profitable sometimes, but mostly that's just targeting people with more money than sense. This HN notion that ads shape everyone's behaviour (except me, obviously) is so disconnected from my experience that I am sometimes confused by it.
- hlynurd 3mo ago
  A single polluting factory won't ruin the lungs of a single person, but thousands of factories will have an unhealthy effect on a population.
- guelo 3mo ago
  Which category is it when the user asks which is the best brand for the thing they want to buy and the platform lies to them and recommends the brand that paid the most money?
  - fwn 3mo ago
    Concealed advertising is highly problematic and deserves discussion. It is not, however, what OpenAI introduced in the article above. Their current ad formats are, apparently, transparently labeled and clearly separated. It is very likely that this will adjust in the future. Just look at how indistinguishable from organic content some prominent ad placements have become over time. But: There is merit in discussing the actual product, not some hypothetical version of it. If we do discuss hypotheticals, we should make that explicit. This also helps the whole debate (and therefore, I believe, ad critics): arguments grounded in reality are usually far more effective than those that aren't. ... And there might come a point where OpenAI introduces some kind of native ad format. We would be well advised to preserve our credibility for that discussion. edit: Paid content in the organic LLM output is a current problem already. It ist just not what this announcement is about.

lII1lIlI11ll 3mo ago

> Unpopular opinion: I think users should be free to choose. There is nothing unpopular about your opinion - silent majority definitely wants ad-subsidized free tiers (that is why they are so popular and ads are not banned anywhere in the western world), it is just that arguing with radicals on HN or reddit is exhausting and a waste of time in general.