This is not meant to be tongue in cheek comment but has anybody figured out how the companies manage the "everyone is going to be replaced in a year" rhetoric while also working hard on ads that are clearly designed for humans to consume?
the MBA logic based on a very biased and small sample size from a very select timeframe in the 1980s is that advertising during a recession leads to higher payouts when the economy recovers: https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/podcast/knowledge-at-wha...
there's also a lot of language on essentially preying on people's insecurities by selling them an artificial sense of agency which is a fun reminder of how manipulative marketers are
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."
The rest of that show is great too, if I remember correctly he goes on ranting about it more and it includes him calling marketers "Satan's little helpers" and blaming them for filling the world with garbage. Basically the wet dream of the people pushing AI hard right now, so sounds like a match made in heaven.
I was recently rewatching one of Hicks routines for the first time in possibly 20 years and his content is just as relevant now, if not more so, than it was 30+ years ago when he wrote and performed it.
Helps that Hicks was borderline obsessed with hating marketing and marketers, and they're an even bigger pest today than 30 years ago. I guess that's how you make your content relevant through the ages, target the parasites :)
everyone is laboring under the assumption that things will continue approximately as normal because what the hell else do you do? how, as amazon, would you plan for the collapse of all economies and markets? sure, as maybe an amazon exec you plan for you and yours, but amazon the behemoth? its got nothing.
I believe "classical" advertisements, as in those intended to convince the average person to purchase a tangible product, are on their way out.
I'm sure I'm not the only one who's noticed an increasing percentage of ads that fall outside of that category - either aimed at business owners and wannabe entrepreneurs, trying to sell some sort of get rich quick scheme, or just straight up scams.
It is the job of management to figure out how to make gains over the next 90 days, not make gains sustainable. The money available for consumers to spend in wake of their unemployment is the problem for whenever that issue occurs.
If there isn't a good way, you break the company up, sell it for scrap, give the resulting money to the shareholders, and they do whatever with it. It's the Jack Welch model.
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.
We run several campaigns for brands on ChatGPT, brand terms consistently perform pretty low. It seems a lot of the prompts are about topics, generics, long tail things... Definitely making a jump, but I would guess people are searching for long tail prompts about working out, what apps could help them track, and you are showing up rather from the app store listing or other mentions on web. Really a black box to some degree, there are some AEO/GEO tools you could use (we have one I could run for you if interested) to try and see where you come up, where competitors come up, etc. That would only show presence, no one has any sort of real prompt volume counts at this point in time (outside Anthropic/openai/google obviously)
When ads are inevitably folded into the prompts to the AI, I imagine it'll be fun for a bit to prompt the AI to react with disgust to the idea of having to serve some ad. Until they fix that hole.
I hate that the progression is so predictable. Yeah, clearly labelled ads today. Less clearly labelled tomorrow. Then they'll be indistinguishable from the text of the AI but still separate. Then they'll start folding it in to the AI prompts. Then they'll start folding it in at the training phase so the weights themselves drive you towards Thinking Ford First, this step being inevitable because it almost certainly will be by far the most effective of all of these techniques. Opus 7.2 Brought To You By Mountain Dew. Just a coincidence that every time you ask it to build an authorization system it writes code to ensure that the user has drunk a verification can, and is just incompetent at removing that code for some reason.
Sigh.
Enjoy this era of AI, folks, while the AIs are still developing too quickly for enshittification to catch up properly and the market and indeed the National Interest won't let anyone slow down so it can. But it will. It is inevitable. Make sure to at least keep a toe dipped in the open weights AIs, and any future truly open source AIs that develop.
Marketing companies are already selling their ability to influence the training phase. I've seen entirely fake companies with fake products getting recommended for real queries, and the companies behind them selling this as proof to real companies. How would the models know the difference between a completely astroturfed e-commerce site and a real one? What data are they going to use when you ask for the "best natural deodorant" other than their corpus of scraped sites, more of which are fake everyday?
> Then they'll be indistinguishable from the text of the AI but still separate. Then they'll start folding it in to the AI prompts. Then they'll start folding it in at the training phase so the weights themselves drive you towards Thinking Ford First, this step being inevitable because it almost certainly will be by far the most effective of all of these techniques. Opus 7.2 Brought To You By Mountain Dew. Just a coincidence that every time you ask it to build an authorization system it writes code to ensure that the user has drunk a verification can, and is just incompetent at removing that code for some reason.
I know close to nothing about the US regulation in this space but at least in Europe, when you pay for advertisement, it has to be always clearly communicated to the user. Are you assuming that they will just ignore the law in such a blatant way?
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.)
Won't this be a bit of a problem when your new microservice includes an ad for Diet Coke? Has someone patented a mechanism for putting ad delivery into someone else's vibe coded consumer project yet?
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.
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?"
this is FUD and I can have a bet with you that this won't happen in 3 years (or ever) [1]. post-training on specific brands is hard and affects overall accuracy, doesn't offer explainability, long cadence, no run time auction..
most importantly: there's enough competition that people would just use other models that don't do this. the kind of people who peddle this FUD are have not much theory of how markets work. Cory Doctorow has done a number on them and spread a conspiracy theory that everything is enshittified and everything gets worse. "just wait guys I'm telling you, the good days are over okkk?"
most importantly, the future will have a pareto optimal set up compared to today where you will have much better models, much cheaper and have options that are subsidised by ads.
[1] i can't eliminate some rando companies trying but not OpenAI not Anthropic.
3 years is probably too soon, but I would take the bet on "ever" any day of the week.
> most importantly: there's enough competition that people would just use other models that don't do this.
Show me a Smart TV without ads and some form of tracking. Some product categories are already completely enshittified despite plenty of competitors. People care about up front cost more than any other metric. So no, people will not switch to other models in numbers that matter. If your competitors can drive down up-front prices by selling ad placements or eliminating free checked luggage (airline industry) and you try to take the high road your reward will usually be irrelevance and bankruptcy[1].
Edit:
[1] You could cite Apple as a counterexample, except they're busy stuffing ads into more and more of their software. Why? Because it's free money for them and 99.9% of users don't care enough to switch.
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.
They weren't going to burn a couple trillion dollars of capital and lose money on every API call just so you could ask it to tell you why your cat brings you dead mice.
They're going to pump this shit so full of advertising it's not going to be funny. And worse, it's going to be incredibly subtle and insidious. You're not even going to realize the responses are guiding you into certain purchases. Just gentle, reassuring advice that you should be buying shit.
Forget Amazon, ultimately this is going to dramatically alter consumer choice on a manufacturer level and OEMs won't be able to optimise their way around it.
Users might not even notice - Will they prompt around it e.g., "Didn't Dyson used to make a hair dryer that was well reviewed?" if it isn't even recommended to them?
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>.
There is no such thing as SEO. Anyways. People will pay to have their shit pushed on ChatGPT , just like all other ads.
You know, the path Christ walked down to his cruxifixction is actually littered with storefronts and merchants and ads today, hah. There’s no beating this human sin, it’s biblically fucked up. It’s the number one faith and we couldn’t even keep ads away from a Holy place.
Jesus Christ, lord have mercy. We are fallen , through and through, during your time and even in our time today. And in fact, we have been fallen since the beginning of time even, as the WORD says. Thank you for your sacrifice, because I am at aghast on how else we could possible even nibble away at the grandness of human sin.
there's also a lot of language on essentially preying on people's insecurities by selling them an artificial sense of agency which is a fun reminder of how manipulative marketers are
"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."
I'm sure I'm not the only one who's noticed an increasing percentage of ads that fall outside of that category - either aimed at business owners and wannabe entrepreneurs, trying to sell some sort of get rich quick scheme, or just straight up scams.
If there isn't a good way, you break the company up, sell it for scrap, give the resulting money to the shareholders, and they do whatever with it. It's the Jack Welch model.
This is the cancer that has killed so many otherwise good businesses here.
My guess is that it’s because users talk to ChatGPT about our app, so it recommends it to more people?
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.
I hate that the progression is so predictable. Yeah, clearly labelled ads today. Less clearly labelled tomorrow. Then they'll be indistinguishable from the text of the AI but still separate. Then they'll start folding it in to the AI prompts. Then they'll start folding it in at the training phase so the weights themselves drive you towards Thinking Ford First, this step being inevitable because it almost certainly will be by far the most effective of all of these techniques. Opus 7.2 Brought To You By Mountain Dew. Just a coincidence that every time you ask it to build an authorization system it writes code to ensure that the user has drunk a verification can, and is just incompetent at removing that code for some reason.
Sigh.
Enjoy this era of AI, folks, while the AIs are still developing too quickly for enshittification to catch up properly and the market and indeed the National Interest won't let anyone slow down so it can. But it will. It is inevitable. Make sure to at least keep a toe dipped in the open weights AIs, and any future truly open source AIs that develop.
I know close to nothing about the US regulation in this space but at least in Europe, when you pay for advertisement, it has to be always clearly communicated to the user. Are you assuming that they will just ignore the law in such a blatant way?
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.
(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.)
Just consider how even paid streaming services are bringing in ads, or how TVs were caught using ACR to spy on us.
LLM's were born enshittified, there was no enjoyable era. It was made by the enshittification machine for the enshittification machine.
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.
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.
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?"
most importantly: there's enough competition that people would just use other models that don't do this. the kind of people who peddle this FUD are have not much theory of how markets work. Cory Doctorow has done a number on them and spread a conspiracy theory that everything is enshittified and everything gets worse. "just wait guys I'm telling you, the good days are over okkk?"
most importantly, the future will have a pareto optimal set up compared to today where you will have much better models, much cheaper and have options that are subsidised by ads.
[1] i can't eliminate some rando companies trying but not OpenAI not Anthropic.
> most importantly: there's enough competition that people would just use other models that don't do this.
Show me a Smart TV without ads and some form of tracking. Some product categories are already completely enshittified despite plenty of competitors. People care about up front cost more than any other metric. So no, people will not switch to other models in numbers that matter. If your competitors can drive down up-front prices by selling ad placements or eliminating free checked luggage (airline industry) and you try to take the high road your reward will usually be irrelevance and bankruptcy[1].
Edit: [1] You could cite Apple as a counterexample, except they're busy stuffing ads into more and more of their software. Why? Because it's free money for them and 99.9% of users don't care enough to switch.
Seriously what problem are we solving for here apart from Amazon trying to justify burning a giant pile of cash for OpenAI?
Sure, but a billion people presumably do want to keep using ChatGPT for free.
If anything, things like Google putting really good AI right in search is making OpenAI’s efforts increasingly a hopelessly uphill battle.
"Oh. Well, then stop."
There used to be optional ads. I used to pay money for adverts -- computer shopper and micromart in the 90s for example. There aren't now.
Other than that? Yes it’s total dog$hit.
I'll be honest though, when I first read the headline I was trying to reconcile that with the crash. Took me a moment.
They weren't going to burn a couple trillion dollars of capital and lose money on every API call just so you could ask it to tell you why your cat brings you dead mice.
They're going to pump this shit so full of advertising it's not going to be funny. And worse, it's going to be incredibly subtle and insidious. You're not even going to realize the responses are guiding you into certain purchases. Just gentle, reassuring advice that you should be buying shit.
This future sucks.
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"
Users might not even notice - Will they prompt around it e.g., "Didn't Dyson used to make a hair dryer that was well reviewed?" if it isn't even recommended to them?
You know, the path Christ walked down to his cruxifixction is actually littered with storefronts and merchants and ads today, hah. There’s no beating this human sin, it’s biblically fucked up. It’s the number one faith and we couldn’t even keep ads away from a Holy place.
Jesus Christ, lord have mercy. We are fallen , through and through, during your time and even in our time today. And in fact, we have been fallen since the beginning of time even, as the WORD says. Thank you for your sacrifice, because I am at aghast on how else we could possible even nibble away at the grandness of human sin.
I’m not surprised by this, unfortunately. One can hope that it does not materially affect (bias) output.