There's been AI-based call screening on Android for a while now. Gives me speech-to-text in real-time so I don't even need to hear what they've got to say, and can reply with canned answers. This isn't fast either.
I am one of the fools who believed they wouldnt go the advertising route and have commented as much. To me it does not make sense to monitize this product for ads because it muddies the waters of truth and an ad free or local run LLM could easily destroy their business because no one has true loyalty to open ai.
Why is this assumed to be an issue of intentionally 'injecting ads into Bing Chat', and not just a side effect of parsing Bing search results that may include advertisements that have always been there? The later seems much more likely, and they are even explicitly marking info coming from ads as such.
I feel like the difference is about the product. On search engines its like you are browsing a catalog or magazine. You know what is an ad, and there are many options to choose from. With a Chatbot it is more similar to talking to a person where they give you a direct answer to your question (instead of just handing you a piece of paper with a bunch of options). I think the format makes all the difference. You expect when you are talking with a "person" to be given un manipulated information. You don't expect this person is taking money in the background to influence what is said. You do know politicians purchase advertising too??
No thank you.. I am waiting at this point for an open source local alternative. Not looking for a new monopoly... Also not a fan of the "plugin store" concept. Why not just keep it in the background. Why should I need to "install" and select plugins at all. Just do the leg work in the background and feed me the results.. Seems like OpenAI is intentionally hamstringing themselves so they can shoe horn more opportunities for profit. Waiting for competition to catch up...
We have essentially what is the 'smartest "person" in the world' being bribed to say what advertisers want instead of just giving the truth. 'best x product' wont return the best product but a garbage product which paid the most in advertising.
So disappointed in the direction of these things..
Google takes your data and sells it. Literally making your data available to the highest bidder. Is OpenAI doing that? If Google existed in its current form during the early internet it would be classified in the same category as Bonzai Buddy. Spyware. That is what Google is. So I can very reasonably understand why people would trust OpenAI with data they wouldn't trust Google with. OpenAI hasn't spit in the face of its users yet.
> Google takes your data and sells it. Literally making your data available to the highest bidder.
But it doesn't, does it? It sells the fact that it knows everything about everyone and can get any ad to the perfect people for it. It's not going on the open market and telling people I regularly buy 12 lbs of marshmallow fluff and then use it in videos I keep on my google drive.
> Google takes your data and sells it. Literally making your data available to the highest bidder.
No, Google takes money to present ads to people of different demographics, and uses your data to do that. It doesn’t sell your data, which is, in fact their competitive edge in ads – selling your data would be selling the cow when they’d prefer to sell the milk.
Not really. Even the most evil Google one can imagine would realise "your data" is the most valuable thing they possess, selling it would be bad for business. They're selling ads to the highest bidder who's looking for someone with a profile based on your data, but not your data itself.
> I can very reasonably understand why people would trust OpenAI with data they wouldn't trust Google with. OpenAI hasn't spit in the face of its users yet.
In other words, having been burnt once by touching a flame, the conclusion these people draw is that the problem was with that particular flame and they're fine with reaching for a different one?
Because they are completely different business models. If OpenAI decides to become an advertising behemoth then I would show concern. Right now they use your data for training (when they use it).
OpenAI is selling others data in their model responses. Selling others data is their main business model.
If it uses user data to train their models other users could ask "Show me the code for gmail spam filters", and if it was trained on engineers refactoring that spam filter in ChatGPT chances are it would give you the code. If that doesn't count as "selling user data" I don't know what is. They not only sell it, they nicely package and rewrite it to make it easy to avoid copyright claims!
OpenAI has already demonstrated that they're all in for maximizing profit. They may not be advertisers, but advertisers aren't the only sorts of companies that make bank by selling personal data.
I see no reason to think OpenAI would leave that money on the table.
We are a small business that provides a service. In business more than 30 years. We never win our disputes dispite providing mountains of evidence. At this point we dont even respond to them we simply file a lawsuit and add all our court fees on top. We have won 100% of our cases. 100% while presenting literally the same evidence we would in the dispute process. Banks and the credit card processors are accesories to fraud plain and simple. Either a class action lawsuit needs to happen or legistation does.
If this was my money they were charging back I'm probably steal this idea. They amount isn't even that much (like less than $200 total for hundreds of thousands coming in) but it's the principal of the thing and it just makes me mad that people are so selfish and scamming small companies.
They absolutely are accessories, but mostly by inaction. They probably have insurance that covers them so it's generally just not worth it to get involved - just approve for the claimant and move on.
In my last job, the finance team basically didn't bother investigating or challenging chargebacks. The solution was to employ anti-fraud ML services (we used Ravelin) to prevent transactions that were at high risk of chargeback.
It was surprisingly effective, but expensive. Sadly, still cheaper than the potential cost of the chargebacks.
Ironically, we are in the business of providing people court documents which they have to sign / notarize, and we still get this kind of chargeback behavior.
In our case though, we've gotten quite good at writing these dispute letters and win more than 50% of them. Not perfect but ok. At least, it was until this pricing change which will cost us.
The reality is that ChatGPT, while not yet advanced enough to surpass Google, is just the beginning... Prior to ChatGPT, it was difficult to imagine a world without Google's dominance. Now it is very clear that Google has a real threat.
It's not just about ChatGPT version 1. It's about the potential for chatbot technology to bypass Google altogether. While the answers provided by ChatGPT may not be perfect right now, what happens when they are close to perfect? Why would you use a traditional search engine when you can get the information you need in a far more efficient manner?
Google isn't at code red right now because of ChatGPT V1 but because of the next 10 years of chatbots.
For me, I have already changed my searching behavior for a quite a few (not all) queries .. A lot of my queries these days go ChatGPT -> Brave Search -> Google. Google being third down the list for me.
It's not yet. But it clearly shows the direction where search is going, and the ways in which we will likely ask for information.
Classical search enhanced with AI algorithms is probably not the future. And Google invested a lot in it. It's unlikely that Google will be fast at adapting (changing) their business model.
I think if anything we're at a crossroads. Natural language is great for some types of queries, but has its limits for others. Internet search engines have come to be used for a lot of different tasks, and a large part of Google's sticking power has been that it's at least decent at most of them. But that may also be a bit of a problem. Based on everything I've seen so far, it appears that the more conversational a search engine is, the worse it tends to become at the task search engines originally did (i.e. finding documents about a topic). We've also sort of started to perform all sorts of things through this medium of document-finding, that perhaps could be done differently. I think it does a disservice to both those other tasks and the usefulness of document-finding.
Because no one believes a random person can find arbitrage opportunities that hedge funds or high frequency traders are not already exploiting.. In this case I think most people are wrong. I think it is possible to still find arbitrage opportunities in the open market.
Oh, you can find opportunities. They just don’t have the RoI and scalability that hedge funds are looking for. Sometimes bigger scraps reach the ocean floor and it’s a big day in bottom feeder’s life to stumble upon one.
