I'd state the exact opposite, especially in times where fake news, bot farms and AI generated content are everywhere it matters if something comes from a trusted source or not.
Maybe again because I don’t care about a source I have always operated in a way that assumes other’s aren’t telling the truth.
I don’t care about how many up or down votes some comment or piece of content has. I also have never blindly trusted videos or pictures. All sources can be corrupted and as such shouldn’t be trusted without verification.
Which is why I still don’t value accounts nor read user names.
Even with people I personally know I have always used the phrase: “trust, but verify”
I am smoking this thing called: putting same prompt in four different apps and seeing which ones give me answers and which ones hallucinate and patronize me, but considering your comment I can see how you would prefer ChatGPT
Having the same experience during development of my MCP App. ChatGPT is by far the worst, slow, hallucinating or just quitting. Claude is the best with amazing results and Mistral Le Chat surprisingly good.
Have you tried actually holding a conversation with it? I'm really puzzled in which world Gemini/Claude is better than ChatGPT for day-to-day tasks/conversations.
Claude can't even search products on Amazon, Jesus.
You know, I just tried to search on Amazon.de and it worked without ChatGPT. Is it a thing with the .nl-tld that you have to use ChatGPT for something simple like that? ;-)
I don't really see the problem here. Yeah, we know that these models are not good for actual logic. These models are lossy data compression and most-likely-responses-from-internet-forums-and-articles machines.
This kind of parlor tricks are not interesting and just because a model can list animals with or without some letters in their names doesn't mean anything especially since it isn't like the model "thinks" in English it just gives you the answer after translating it to English.
These are funny, like how you can do weird stuff with JavaScript language by combining special characters, but that doesn't really mean anything in the grand scheme of things. Like JavaScript these models despite their specific flaws still continue to deliver value to people using them.
You don't see the problem with a multi billion dollar project not able to give a correction answer to a trivial question? This tech is supposed to revolutionize business, increase productivity to unfathomable levels, automate all our dull boring tasks so we can focus on interesting things! Where have you been the past 4 years?
This. Part of my role is assessing and recommending what if any AI implementations we might add to our production and I did this experiment because my boss's boss did it himself first and sent me a screenshot with the caption "concerning" (though he got "tiger" as his animal). It's going to be a hard sell for more complicated things as long as it makes catastrophic mistakes like this on simple things.
The difference is that in a software project you can throw more than one instance of the model at the code. If you tell it to follow your naming conventions and it fails to do so, that can be picked up by an instance of the same LLM that's running checks before you commit anything. Even though it's the same model it'll usually detect stuff like that. You can even have it do multiple passes.
The way most people are coding with AI today is like Baby's First AI™ compared to how we'll all be using LLMs for coding in the future. Soon that "double check everything" step will be built in to the coding agents and you'll have configuration options for how many passes you want it to perform (speed VS accuracy tradeoff).
Is she paying for it? That is the only question that matters in the end.
For myself, I use LLMs daily and I would even say a lot on some days and I _did_ pay the 20€/mo subscription for ChatGPT, but with the latest model I cannot justify that anymore.
4o was amazingly good even if it had some parasocial issues with some people, it actually did what I expect an LLM to do. Now the quality of the 5.whatever has gone drastically down. It no longer searches web for things it doesn't know, but instead guesses.
Even worse is the tone it uses; "Let's look at this calmly" and other repeated sentences are just off putting and make the conversation feel like the LLM thinks I am about to kill myself constantly and that is not what I want from my LLM.
>Is she paying for it? That is the only question that matters in the end.
Don't underestimate advertising. Noone pays for Facebook or Google search. Yet the ad business with a couple billion users seems profitable enough to fund frontier LLM research and inference infrastructure as a side-gig in these companies. Google only rushed out AI overview because they saw ChatGPT eating their market share in information retrieval and Zuck is literally panicking about the fact that users share more personal details with OpenAI than on his doomscrolling attention sinks.
OpenAI is talking out of their ass with their advertising plans. Meta and Google are an advertising duopoly, extremely anti-competitive, and basically defrauding their own customers. OpenAI can't just replicate that.
Worse still is that OpenAI has no competitive edge. All the hype around their advertising plans is based on the idea that they can blend the ads right into the response, a turbocharged version of Native Advertising.
This is explicitly illegal. Very explicitly.
The US' FTC may have been declawed by the current US government, but the rest of the west will nuke them from orbit over it. Doubtless OpenAI will try some stunt alike marking the entire LLM response as "this is an ad", but that won't satisfy the regulators.
This only gets worse with further problems. An LLM hallucinating product features is going to invoke regulator wrath as well, and an LLM deciding to cut off the adcopy early will invoke the wrath of the advertiser.
> Yet the ad business with a couple billion users seems profitable enough to fund frontier LLM research and inference infrastructure as a side-gig in these companies
Also important: Not anymore. The tech giants are now issuing quite a lot of debt to pay for the AI plans.
If that were true Meta and Google wouldn't be so desperate to get in the game. And don't think that other nations would step in against abusive marketing practices. The EU has been battling uphill for decades and the only ones who had some moderate success for user rights are private groups like NYOB. There is no law that will save the old tech companies and they know it.
Maybe I am underestimating how suggestible average people are as someone who has never in their lives clicked on an ad I just can't see ads being anything but a deterrent for using the service
You sure are. And it sounds like you are also underestimating the effect yourself as well. In fact this perception is so common that there is even a name for it in psychology: Third-person effect. Many people believe that advertising does not affect them. But ironically, the more you believe so, the more likely you are to fall victim to particular types of advertising. And in general your response to ads will be very similar to everyone else's. These "annoying" ads that you "would never click on" are just badly personalized or badly placed ads. That's the only type that gets stuck in your mind when you think of ads, based on your personal biases. But the major tech companies have spent the last one-and-a-half decades on perfecting the psychology of advertising. You might think you are immune, but you are certainly not. Every buying decision you have made in the last 10 years was almost certainly influenced to some degree. Just not always consciously. And I'm willing to bet that a lot of buying decisions were already heavily influenced by ChatGPT, even before their shopping feature. OpenAI just didn't profit on them as much as they could.
Influenced to some degree sure, weather influences me to some degree, but I truly feel like ads aren't affective on me. Unless we broaden definition of ads to something like sponsored content. I have bought some TTRPG rules sets after I have seen them being played in a sponsored video, but I still have never clicked an ad on a page and bought something.
And I actually have tried to use ChatGPT to buy something. I have asked it to search for specific items from EU stores so I wouldn't need to pay import taxes, but usually it fails. It either suggests Global stores which ship from US or China or it suggests different products than what I asked for.
If ChatGPT or whatever LLM I was using could actually link me the products I wanted without me searching for them they should get a commission for sure, but we sure aren't there yet.
They are, guaranteed. Sponsored content is also just another kind of ad. This stuff doesn't appear randomly in your field of view, it was placed there. Let me give you a more general, easily comprehensible scenario: You walk into a store. I'm willing to bet you'll recognise many brands in that store - even ones you never bought anything from. But these brand names and all their associations are still in your head. And they are not there by accident. They were placed there intentionally. If for example you believe Apple iMacs are overpriced luxury items that people use who are more artsy show-offs than real tech go-getters, that brand recognition has been carefully placed in your mind (and the minds of millions others). So if one day, say, you switch to a more artsy profession with close customer contact that needs to convey money and success, that brand recognition will likely pay off. Every relevant brand does that and every ad agency works full time to make sure you see it. If you think you're immune, you're probably particularly easy prey, because you can't even imagine in how many scenarios they influence you. And ChatGPT is one hell of an influence potential.
This. Sponsored content doesn't appear "randomly" in your feed. They already know what you like and just present it to you in a format or source that you consider acceptable. Most people really have no clue how far advertising companies' claws reach into their lives. But this is one of the biggest businesses on the planet, because it works so well.
> but I still have never clicked an ad on a page and bought something.
But millions, and millions, and millions of people do. Certainly enough that I provide consulting services for a number of businesses for whom the majority of their revenue comes 95+% from ad-clicks. It's been that way 10-15 years and there have been ups and downs, but at the end of the day, the adspend has always been fruitful.
Whilst I sat around with fellow technical people all patting themselves on the back telling themselves and anyone who will listen "ads dont work" the people I consult too have become multi-millionaires with little more than double digit hosting costs and a few ads accounts.
This seems to be a continual blind spot for a lot of techincal people who really seem to struggle to grasp that not everybody thinks or acts the same way they do.
However, I believe an ad it still influences you subconsciously as long as it is in your sight line.
I wouldn't be surprised if there is a lot of investigation into subtly slipping advertising in the LLM responses the way Korean dramas have product placement right in the storyline (Subway, bbq chicken, beverages, makeup, etc).
Subtle things like the guy in CSI Miami talking about how good Subway is for 5 minutes?
Of course stuff in the world influences me, I am still a human. Still I have never clicked an ad and bought something. I simply don't get who would. Same as with the super market placing candy and stuff next to the cashier to get people to buy more, I have never been swayed by those because when I go to the store I am always on a mission and know before hand what I am buying.
It would be cool to see all the times I have been influenced into buying something because of subconscious advertisement, but that's kind a impossible so all I can do is deny it and of course all marketing people will say that I am wrong.
And we can argue forever what counts as an advertisement. For example I recently bought a new mouse pad, I wasn't particularly looking for a specific one, just something fun and bright and as I was browsing a web store they had a cool design for half off and I bought it. Maybe that was targeted advertisement, but I had already made the decision to buy a new mousepad and had been browsing on and off for few weeks, so was it really? I would argue not.
You seem to have defined ads as "obvious calls to action that end up in me buying it for sure". That's a pretty narrow view of marketing, but it does feel like you are aware that there may be other forms as you provide examples across the thread. It comes off as some form of elitism, where you deem the simplest ads as ineffective on yourself (but work on "average people") - but then go on to mention things like discounts and sponsorships, which to most are obvious marketing ploys too. No judgement, but maybe reflect on this?
Is discount really an ad? Like if I had already made a decision to buy a thing and now I paid less for it was it really a working ad?
Also sponsored content is way different than having ads on a website or in an app or what kind of ads do you think GPT will have?
And you are definitely judging me. When people say “ads” that is pretty specific thing that they mean. If you broaden it to mean everything then I can’t argue as there is no point.
There is two options either ads (as in those things every one blocks with uBlock Origin) do not work on people OR they do work on most people but not on me, if anything they are a deterrent from buying that product.
In most cases, yes. At minimum, it’s a marketing tactic built with the same intent as an ad: to influence your decision-making.
> Also sponsored content is way different than having ads on a website or in an app
However they are all exactly the same, in that they are all ads.
> When people say “ads” that is pretty specific thing that they mean.
No, that’s what you mean. Most people aren’t limiting it to a specific kind of ad, they mean anything designed to influence their behavior, shape their decisions, or sell them something.
> And we can argue forever what counts as an advertisement.
Or we can just work off the available definitions of modern advertising.
"An ad is any paid or strategically placed message designed to influence attention, perception, or purchasing behavior, regardless of format or channel."
> There is two options
There are in fact not. There are two you seem cable of recognising, but there are in fact others.
> OR they do work on most people but not on me
That’s an oversimplification. Ads can work in aggregate without working every time, in every format, or in the specific way you imagine.
Blocking one specific type of ad doesn’t make you immune to ads, it just means you’re filtering one, very narrow channel.
Influence happens through a huge variety of other means, including those that you seem to think specifically don't count and include, but are not limited too, sponsorships, discounts, product placement, social proof, algorithmic recommendations, brand exposure and many, MANY more.
You don’t have to consciously click an ad for advertising to shape your buying behavior.
> Any message designed to promote or sell a product, service, or brand, where there is a material connection between the speaker and the advertiser.
Yes, a discount is an ad - sometimes by the brand/manufacturer to get you to buy their product instead of a competitor, or by the seller to sell that product over others (for even mundane reasons like stock clearing).
Yes, sponsored content is an ad. The content creator is reimbursed for their output that is used to convince viewers to perform some purchase activity, usually over alternatives.
You’re really severely restricting the definition yourself by claiming an ad is “things that ublock origin” blocks. They can’t block physical banners and billboards or TV commercial breaks - does that now make them not ads? Whether you intended to buy something again doesn’t disqualify something from being an ad. In fact, that’s often when an ad is most effective - to buy the one they show you, instead of one you haven’t heard of or considered.
Ads aren't just for click through, they are for suggestions, and mind share as well.
You can't click on the budweiser logo when watching super bowl ad. But if you sit in your chatgpt window all day then it's probably worth it for advertisers to expect to build familiarity with brands they advertise.
Really depends what the ads are. If they are popups or other intrusive ads the product will just die. If they are subtle hints in the text how are you going to track it. I don't know, I just don't believe in ads, but then again I am dirty commie so who am I to tell you not to
That’s not the point. The point is that brands build awareness through ads that don’t require clicking and this ha effected you whether you want to admit it or not
Your messages are very consistent, it all adds up and makes perfect sense.
I don't care either.
Online I get lots of ads blocked, but not all, I really don't put much effort into it beyond default.
So what if I am "influenced" if it doesn't effect any significant part of my behavior.
One thing I never do is respond with money.
I'm just not a "consumer" so that goes back before the internet.
Sure I see ads thrown at me which keep me aware of those brands but the only buys I make would happen without any ads.
On the rare occasion that I want to make a significant purchase, then I will seek out the ad. Oh the horror !
But I want to see how honest I think it is compared to a number of reviews. It's really pretty neutral since it's just as much me using the ad as the ad using me, plus equally good for knowing what looks good to buy as knowing what brand not to buy.
Then there's the interesting way when an overall economic downturn gets rougher you see ads for things that almost never need advertising for years in a row, or never have before :\
OTOH you also see some of the most trivial stuff that must be flying off the shelf and all you can do is shake your head ;)
Imagine subliminal messages being sent in the llm responses carefully created for max impact on you. I’m sure many companies will pay to recommend their product on ChatGPT.
not necessarily, if openai managed to monetize free users. Could be through advertising, or integrations with marketplaces on commission (e.g. order your next Hello Fresh through ChatGPT? Get recommended a hotel?)
They could succeed where Alexa failed. A free user can even bring in more than a paid user if you look at some platforms like spotify, where apparently there is a large chunk of free users generating more income through ads than if they would pay
I was researching CAVA ( due to the crazy earnigs announcement yesterday ) and it was displaying some nice links to the website, all suffixed with ?utm=chatgpt
Most potential customers wouldn't ever think in terms as "justifying" a €20 purchase when the product is great.
ChatGPT (and competitors) is an incredibly high value tool, and €20 per month is nothing for somebody who wants or needs it. It's just a matter of if they use it enough to start hitting the daily limits.
This is why people are constantly moaning about paying too many subscriptions and why we have companies whose whole business is to remind you to not pay for stupid subscriptions.
As if paying constantly for a thing is normal and not dystopian
People are completely irrational when it comes to their personal finances, and hackers are the group who is most irrational of all.
For a few bucks per month you have access to artificial intelligence on a level which was completely unheard of just a few years ago. A revolution on the level of electricity or radio communication. And you are still complaining about price.
Consider if it's only habit that you have learnt from others. People talk all the time about the price of milk, eggs or gas, even though these things could double in price and still be incredible value. Then they turn around and waste enormous sums of money on completely meaningless stuff.
>no longer searches web for things it doesn't know, but instead guesses.
This could very well have been a cost-reduction effort to try and simulate what it was doing before.
Somebody must think training has already looked at the web enough, or there may be too much slop now that there was no contingency for.
Then you've got tighter guardrails to make it more palatable for a wider audience.
I guess different people would draw the line differently, but when it goes from being worth money to not worth it any more that could be an enshittification effect.
Why we as a society should give a fuck if someone can’t stop prompting? Unless you mean we as a society should make you pay for the damages your prompts are doing to nature?
This is like people crying how their phones are ruining their lives. Just stop. Take some responsibility and control of your life. I don’t feel exhausted especially after letting LLM hallucinate some code lines. If you do, maybe it is time to re-evaluate your life choices
You are welcome