Bill Hicks really did say it best when it came to marketing:

"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing… kill yourself. It’s just a little thought; I’m just trying to plant seeds. Maybe one day they’ll take root – I don’t know. You try, you do what you can."

> By making decisions under the assumption that society will continue

That seems completely at odds with "everyone will be replaced by AI"

> Even under the reduction to absurdity of everyone's jobs being replaced in a year, there's still some system of allocating resources and they would still like more resources allocated to them

I pretty strongly disagree. If everyone's jobs are replaced, I think society is over. I just don't believe that the UBI style future is going to play out in any kind of peaceful way

And who will these businesses have for customers when nobody else has a job?

> It is the job of management to figure out how to make gains over the next 90 days, not make gains sustainable.

This is the cancer that has killed so many otherwise good businesses here.

It has ever been the case that garbage in, garbage out. AI is nothing new in that regard.

Paid tier just means you're a more lucrative ad target.

Well they are being generous giving you extra 15 min video streaming which cost a lot to produce for free in a 45min show.

Soon, one need to be tipping advertising producing partners for their hard work.

So, while it's tempting to be cynical and sarcastic, my honest answer is that I expect them to try it, and it would actually be a value judgment as to whether that constitutes ignoring the law.

Common Law-based systems prioritize the consistency of precedents. As a result, the real law is often built on the margins, to borrow an economics terms. Which means that in a sense, we find out what the law "really says" by someone first breaking it and someone else challenging them. What I expect to happen is that we will eventually get to the point that someone is going to judge that the value of trying this is more than the expected value of the resulting lawsuit, and then this will eventually get to trial, and then, a couple of years later, we'll "know" whether or not this is breaking the law.

But there is a sense, a real, non-sarcastic sense, in which until that point, we don't really know if it's illegal or not.

Most of Europe does not operate under Common Law, so this may seem strange.

I would guess they’ll spend ages arguing about what an “ad” is.

Eg if I ask Llama 3 to find me the best headphones, I think we can agree its response isn’t an ad.

If Claude responds with a banner that Sennheiser designed and paid Claude to show, that’s an ad.

They’ll live in the probabilistic grey area between those. If Sennheiser pays Anthropic to add “Sennheiser makes really good headphones” to the system prompt, is it an ad if Claude recommends Sennheiser headphones? What if they pay to ensure their site is included in the web search tool results for any queries about headphones?

It’s sort of akin to paying Google to rank higher in searches if that were a thing they did.

I do think they should have to declare those, but they’re not traditional advertising to me.

Load up on verification cans because the companies who got away with flaunting EU advertising/tracking laws will get away with obnoxious ad-driven AI too.

(The cookie consent banners that you see everywhere were anticipated and forbidden in the laws themselves, companies just gambled that the EU wouldn't be able to enforce the law, and they were correct. I expect something similar to happen with for-profit AI steering.)

Who better to detect slop than the slop engines themselves?

No, they'll do a live auction from multiple models during reply generation. Google has the tech already. They are an advertisement company, you know: https://research.google/blog/mechanism-design-for-large-lang...

In short:

We investigate the design of auction mechanisms for aggregating the output of multiple self-interested LLMs into one joint output. We argue that this comes with a number of unique challenges, and we propose a simple token auction mechanism and illustrate our design through demonstration with an off-the-shelf LLM.

No but non enterprise users will receive injected prompts.

See how emany streaming now created a plus plus version while adding ads to what was the premium version.

And the funny thing they just needed to increase base rates for users to start to ask for an ads supported version.

Absolutely they will. It might be "innocent" at first - "oh we don't want ChatGPT to recommend scam products so we will train it to prefer "trusted" brands" and then inclusion in "trusted brands" will go up for sale with the final stage being outright paid-for recommendation bias for specific products.

The only question is how sales will work if there's some spin up time to do the post training. You can't do a real time auction like Google does, so it will be longer-term contracts I suspect.

Edit: AI is a great opportunity to run the same protection racket that's been run in various existing "marketplaces", where a brand has to buy ad placement for searches for their own name or their competitor will be able to displace them by buying it instead: "You would't want a user asking 'Which Cambells soup flavor is the healthiest?' to get a recommendation for Lipton's would you?"

No it's fitness app, it's called macrocodex and we've something like 17,000+ users and it's a free app, no subscription or ads.

I think chatgpt recommends it because it produces guaranteed results within 2-4 weeks and I think this primary reason why users perhaps boost the app via chatgpt!?

I've not done any marketing other than mentioning it a few times on hackernews.

Edit: it seems many people here do not understand the innovation of macrocodex, so they just assume it's a calorie tracker or workout app. When it's neither.

It uses state space neural network to produce total average calories a person burns in a day without any sensor and it does it more accurately than apple watch, garmin, etc...

Half of the guys here won't be able to create something like this even with claude or codex, try it

Our neural network beats GLP1 like Trizepetide and Retarutide in results

I'd go darker than that. Think about how chatgpt is trying to position itself as a provider of medical advise.

Its easy to see how it will gently tune it's response from symptom to solution.

Cue rapid narrators voice "Chatgpt may cause death, seek real medical advice before buying what chatgpt recommends"

This is why normal people saying they are using ChatGPT to "research" which X to buy makes me so sad. Even if it is not a sponsored answer (yet) it is using data it found on random websites that it trusts are telling the truth. It is the dumbest game of telephone where the start of the chain is made up marking mumbo jumbo or straight fake, and each successive layer somehow speaks with more confidence and the end user thinks that because these LLMs have "access to all data from all time" that it means their answer will be correct.

Well, even payment is no guarantee that ads won't be injected into service. even these fucking movie theaters sho like 20-30 min of ads before showing movie people paid for.

That plan only works if they manage to drive Google et al out of business, and there’s zero evidence of that happening at this point. There’s no more ad $ coming to the table, just a battle for the same $.

If anything, things like Google putting really good AI right in search is making OpenAI’s efforts increasingly a hopelessly uphill battle.

It’s allowing Andy Jassy to have something to tell investors to fend off criticism that Amazon’s internal AI efforts fell way behind the market on his watch. That’s the primary “problem” it solves for Amazon.

Other than that? Yes it’s total dog$hit.

Right, but model providers will do a much better job of policing this than G ever did/could. I'm assuming they're 1) aware of its pollution and 2) are currently ignoring it for <reasons>.