[boringg]

Was anyone expecting anything else? AI is going to follow a similar path to the internet -- embedded ads since it will need to fund itself and revenue path is very far from clearcut.

Brands that get it on the earliest training in large volume will have benefits accrued over the long term.

[sangnoir]

> Brands that get it on the earliest training in large volume will have benefits accrued over the long term.

That's the sales pitch - the truth is if a competitor pays more down the line - they can be fine-tuned in to replace earlier deals

[nequo]

> if a competitor pays more down the line

Unless competition gets regulated away, which Altman is advocating for:

  he supported the creation of a federal agency that can grant licenses to create AI models above a certain threshold of capabilities, and can also revoke those licenses if the models don't meet safety guidelines set by the government.

https://time.com/6280372/sam-altman-chatgpt-regulate-ai/

[TheCoelacanth]

Competing marketer, not competing AI company.

[nequo]

You are right. As usual, having an opinion on the internet is hard.

[Y_Y]

Or better, if you stop paying they'll user the fancy new "forgetting" techniques on your material.

[devbent]

OpenAI's problem is demonstrating how much value their tools add to a worker's productivity.

However calculating how much value a worker has in an organization is already a mostly unsolved problem for humanity, so it is no surprise that even if a tool 5xs human productivity, the makers of the tool will have serious problems demonstrating the tool's value.

[littlestymaar]

It's even worse than that now: they need to demonstrate how much value they bring compared to llama in terms of worker productivity.

While I've no doubt GPT-4 is a more capable model then llama3, I don't get any benefit using it compared to llama3 70B, from the real use benchmark I ran in a personal project last week: they both give solid response the majority of times, and make stupid mistakes often enough so I can't trust them blindly, with no flagrant difference in accuracy between those two.

And if I want to use hosted service, groq makes Llama70 run much faster than GPT-4 so there's less frustration of waiting for the answer (I don't think it matters to much in terms of productivity though, as this time is pretty negligible in reality, but it does affect the UX quite a bit).

[OtherShrezzing]

Since 1987, labour productivity has doubled[1]. A 5x increase would be immediately obvious. If a tool were able to increase productivity on that scale, it would lift every human out of poverty. It'd probably move humanity into a post-scarcity species. 5x is "by Monday afternoon, staff have each done 40 pre-ai-equivalent-hours worth of work".

[1] https://usafacts.org/articles/what-is-labor-productivity-and...

[ENGNR]

But how do you measure labour productivity.

[jpadkins]

macro scale: GDP / labor hours worked.

company scale: sales / labor hours worked

It's very hard to measure at the team or individual level.

[shoggouth]

So you see the marketing point of ChatGPT to be conversational ads?

[elorant]

The ads don't need to be conversational, they could be just references at the end of the answer.

[freeplay]

Which is arguably even more insidious.

[elorant]

So an ad at the end of text is worse than one embedded in the answer? Care to explain why?

[doublerabbit]

You'll probably end up with both.

But with an ending advert, you can finish up with a reference leading to a sponsored source linking to sponsored content which leads to another ending advert.

If the advert text is in embedded, you cannot do such.

[wildrhythms]

"The above 5 paragraph essay contains an ad. Good luck!"

[GartzenDeHaes]

Woman on ChatGPT: Come on! My kids are starvin'!

ChatGPT: Microsoft believes no child should go hungry. You are an unfit mother. Your children will be placed in the custody of Microsoft.

[itishappy]

They're offering an expensive service for free. Could it go any other way?

[ericskiff]

Counterpoint - I pay for my whole team to have access, shared tools, etc. we also spend a decent amount on their APIs across a number of client projects.

OpenAI has a strong revenue model based on paid use

[itishappy]

I don't. I hope you're not paying for my use too.

Ideally they keep us siloed, but I've lost confidence. I've paid for Windows, Amazon Prime, YouTube Premium, my phone, food, you name it, but that hasn't kept the sponsorships at bay.

[manuelmoreale]

If the capitalism mindset applied to the web has taught me anything is that if they can get more money they will.

They’ll charge you money for the service and ALSO get money from advertisers. Because why shouldn’t they.

The famous “if you don’t pay you’re the product” is losing its meaning.

[boringg]

Not compared to the training costs it doesn't and it's competition is fierce especially with llama open-sourcing.

[dylan604]

The second one costs $0.01. The first one cost $100^x where X is some large number. It's common in pretty much every form of business

[apwell23]

i pay for it

[joe_the_user]

Was anyone expecting anything else?

It's the logical thing but no everyone is going to be thinking that far ahead.