[emilsedgh]

I see a lot of negative comments here but to me, it was obvious this is where OAI should land.

They want to be the platform in which you tell what you want, and OAI does it for you. It's gonna connect to your inbox, calendar, payment methods, and you'll just ask it to do something and it will, using those apps.

This means OAI won't need ads. Just rev share.

[dewitt]

> This means OAI won't need ads. Just rev share

If OpenAI thinks there’s sweet, sweet revenue in email and calendar apps, just waiting to be shared, their investors are in for a big surprise.

[dawnerd]

Zapier has been doing this for how long and no one talks about them like some hot new startup.

[anshumankmr]

Isn't Zapier also doing some AI based automations? But yeah, I will say ChatGPT does have a massive user base.

[nicce]

> This means OAI won't need ads.

Ads are defenitely there. Just hidden so deeply in the black box which is generating the useful tips :)

[thebigkick]

If you ask it to build a headless frontend web app, it immediately starts generating code with Next.js. I’ve always wondered how it was trained to default to that choice, given the smorgasbord of web frameworks out there. Next.js is solid, but it’s also platform-ware, tightly coupled to commercial interests. I wish there were more bias toward genuinely open-source technologies.

[jerojero]

There's probably different ways the LLM converged to it.

One could be for example: from people asking online which tools they should use to build something and being constantly recommended to do it with Next.js

Another could be: how many of the code that was used to train the LLM is done in Next.js

Generally, the answer is probably something along the lines of "next.js is kind of the most popular choice at the time of training".

[b_e_n_t_o_n]

To me it feels like the default choice in the industry, perhaps it's not and I'm wrong but if I could have that feeling I can see how the AI can as well.

[array_key_first]

I've never seen next.js in the wild. I have seen plain React plus dotnet, though, a million times.

[nicce]

It is a trap. But once you realise that you are already too deeply invested.

[intrasight]

Just append to your prompt "not using a framework developed by a company that supports a genocidal fascist regime"

[aniviacat]

I wonder what the ad labeling (according to EU law) would look like in that case.

In my (non-lawyer) understanding, each message potentially containing sponsored content (which would be every message, if the bias is encoded in the LLM itself,) would need to be marked as an ad individually.

That would make for an odd user interface.

[GoatInGrey]

Because the AI labs are just hovering up all internet text that they can, I've been seeing more and more marketing pilots that deliberately seed marketing material in thousands of fake, AI-generated blogs and tutorials. The intention here is to get new LLMs to train on these huge numbers of associations between specific use cases and the company's product. All in a way that gets their marketing information into the final weights.

You may have started seeing this when LLMs seem to promote things based entirely on marketing claims and not on real-world functionality.

More or less, SEO spam V2.

[jimmydoe]

> This means OAI won't need ads. Just rev share.

They obviously want both. In fact they are already building an ad team.

They have money they have to burn, so it makes sense to throw all the scalable business models in the history, eg app store, algo feed, etc, to the wall and see what stick.

[seydor]

A platform requires a user moat or unfair advantage. Having a better quality model is neither

[famouswaffles]

Consumer LLM apps have moat. As it is, ChatGPT (the app) spends most of its compute on Personal Non work messages (approx 1.9B per day vs 716 for Work)[0]. First, from ongoing conversations that users would return to, then to the pushing of specific and past chat memories, these conversations have become increasingly personalized. Suddenly, there is a lot of personal data that you rely on it having, that make the product better. You cannot just plop over to Gemini and replicate this.

[0] https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w34255/w342...

[typpilol]

How's having the best model not a most?

[maleldil]

Because it changes all the time. A few weeks ago, it was Gemini 2.5 Pro, then Claude Opus 4.1, GPT-5 Thinking, now maybe Claude Sonnet 4.5, etc[1]. Having a good model isn't enough when they're basically interchangeable now. You need something else.

[1] This is an example. Which model was the best when is not important.

[zackangelo]

Because it depends on how much better “best” is. If it’s only incrementally better than open source models that have other advantages, why would you bother?

OpenAI’s moat will only come from the products they built on top. Theoretically their products will be better because they’ll be more vertically integrated with the underlying models. It’s not unlike Apple’s playbook with regard to hardwares and software integration.

[therealdrag0]

Don’t they already have ads? I think I’ve seen sponsored results when asking for product recommendations. Maybe misremembering tho.