Comment by WD-42
13 hours ago
Since they are served as distinct events then I would think they should be easy to block.
Once the ads are injected directly into the main response is when things get interesting.
13 hours ago
Since they are served as distinct events then I would think they should be easy to block.
Once the ads are injected directly into the main response is when things get interesting.
> Once the ads are injected directly into the main response is when things get interesting.
This would be where you post-process the LLM response with a second LLM to remove the ad..
I think it will be difficult to remove bias when you ask a model to compare alternative products. The model will simply lie, as with a biased human opinion and you will need to consult multiple models for a diversity of opinion and presumably use a "trusted" model to fuse the results. Anonymity will be a key tool in reducing the model's ability to engage in algorithmic pricing.
Super easy. Barely an inconvenience.
Not only that, but the underlying model may be tuned to omit mentions or data about competitors entirely, an absence which can't easily be filtered.
Extortionate economic shadowbanning, here we come.
> will simply lie, as with a biased human opinion
Is this really how bias works?
3 replies →
This is already how email works in the corporate world.
A writes email with chatgpt to B.
B sees big blob of text and summarizes email with chatgpt.
Adding an LLM in the middle is just the next step.
It's like one of those memes about the worst possible date picker, except for a communication system.
Then you just end up in an arms race that ultimately leads to photocopy-of-a-photocopy output.
[dead]
you can block these URLs: |bzrcdn.openai.com^, ||bzr.openai.com^ It won't blanket block everything but will significantly reduce telemetry collected.
And that's why you gotta just use one domain. Or mix ads and important content on one domain.
No, wrong lesson. That's why you use UBlock Origin.
Blocking transparent ads is not a good idea. The consequence is that you will be fed opaque ads.
> Blocking transparent ads is not a good idea. The consequence is that you will be fed opaque ads.
Doesn't history show us you just get both?
You pay to get into the movies, then they show you adverts before the film, then the film includes paid product placement of cars, computers, phones, food, etc.
You watch youtube ads, to see a video containing a sponsored ad read, where a guy is woodworking using branded tools he was given for free.
You search on Google for reviews and see search ads, on your way to a review article surrounded by ads, and the review is full of affiliate links.
> Doesn't history show us you just get both?
No. "Opaque ads" are usually heavily regulated out of existence by government legislation.
Your implication that "you will be fed" other ads if you block the main ones is unsubstantiated. But even if it was true, it does not matter. Because the so-called "opaque" ads can and in my opinion should be blocked as well.
I think that in general blocking all ads is always a good idea.
The reason is that there is no negative consequence in doing so. A person has absolutely no obligation, not even an implied one, to watch or otherwise consume any ad. I think that as long as there are ways to remove or block ads, people should use them.
That being said, if the companies wish to intertwine their products with ads that are indistinguishable from the actual content and therefore unblockable, it is okay. They have the right to do that if they want.
But, in the same fashion, the customers have every right to turn away from all such products. And never consider using them ever again.
I don't buy this premise. Nothing stops a company from trying to hide ads in the first place, and plenty of them do. Ad blockers for web content have been a thing for years, and using an ad blocker has continued to be strictly a better experience regardless of how many "organic" ads are present on a page.
[flagged]
7 replies →
What possible reason could they have to not always run both? It would make zero sense to leave that money on the table
It's simpler to do one thing than to do two. You make a choice and you do that.
Could they be doing opaque ads right now and we wouldn't know? It's possible, that will probably eventually come to light and it might have legal consequences, but sure it's possible.
But it's not a given, and your logic of "it would make zero sense to leave money on the table" is certainly not a QED, it's absolute reductionism.
2 replies →