Comment by KellyCriterion
11 hours ago
I stumbled upon this one as well, but I do not understand it really: Why is my job safe if Ads prove there is no AGI?
Because even if there would be AGI, they could (and would?) serve ads anyway?
11 hours ago
I stumbled upon this one as well, but I do not understand it really: Why is my job safe if Ads prove there is no AGI?
Because even if there would be AGI, they could (and would?) serve ads anyway?
If your job is gone forever, with what money are you going to buy the thing in the advert? If nobody can buy the thing in the advert, the value of the ad slot itself is zero.
This is silly, so why does chatgpt ask for monthly payments if AGI is imminent? With what money would we pay them?
My argument and yours both agree that it is *not* imminent.
(Where the "it" that isn't, is AGI that takes your job, rather than any other definition of AGI).
who would pivot to selling ads if AGI was in reach? These orgs are burning a level of funding that is looking to fulfil dreams, ads is a pragmatic choice that implies a the moonshot isn't in range yet.
Because AGI is still some years away even if you are optimistic; and OpenAI must avoid going to the ground in the meantime due to lack of revenue. Selling ads and believing that AGI is reachable in the near future is not incompatible.
>Because AGI is still some years away
For years now, proponents have insisted that AI would improve at an exponential rate. I think we can now say for sure that this was incorrect.
3 replies →
Yes, I don't understand it either. I think the opposite is true. If AGI happens and it becomes immensely successful, it would be the best medium to deliver ads and at the same time our jobs wouldn't be safe.
Perhaps the people who like that quote can elaborate why that quote makes sense and why they like it?
AGI would be able to exponentially improve at much, much better money making schemes like high frequency trading. It would beat every online business. It would run 24/7/365.26 farming out tens of thousands of conversations at once, customized to the person it's talking to, for sales, supplier negotiations, marketing, press, etc.
Its costs would be frighteningly low compared to human employees, so it's margins could remain fine at lower prices.
Nobody will have jobs and nobody will be able to buy the stuff offered in the ads
[dead]
If AGI was around the corner, they wouldn’t have to resort to what some consider a scummy way to make money. They’d would become the most valuable company on the planet, winning the whole game. Ads show you they don’t know what else to do but they desperately need money.
This doesn’t answer the actual question: why they wouldn’t just do both?
There are costs to doing ads (e.g. it burns social/political capital that could be used to defuse scandals or slow down hostile legislation, it consumes some fraction of your employees’ work hours, it may discourage some new talent from joining).
2 replies →
yes but if AGI is around the corner, with what would they make money then?
Selling this AGI to a state actor? OK - this seems realistic, but for how many billions then? 100b per year?
Thats what I meant.
> consider a scummy way to make money.
How should Chatgpt survive then?
Well, the obvious answer is none of these companies should.
Because it shows that it’s just yet another ad delivery vehicle.
Once you go ads, that’s pretty much it, you start focusing on how to deliver ads rather than what you claim your core competency is.