OpenAI ad partner now selling ChatGPT ad placements based on “prompt relevance”
Posted by jlark77777 12 hours ago
Comments
Comment by mikepurvis 5 hours ago
I would guess that ChatGPT has left at least $100 on the table from me having to do this when literally all it had to do was give me a referral link to Amazon or whatever and I would have clicked the buy button.
Comment by pjc50 1 hour ago
Man, this thing is going to be so lucrative when they inject ads into it. Imagine how this is going to combine with the parasocial AI boyfriend/girlfriend people, it's going to be worse than hostess clubs. They'll have to invent whole new categories of nonexistant products for the bots to sell.
Comment by rebuilder 5 hours ago
There’s a special type of frustration when an LLM is close to being useful but just… isn’t.
Comment by sersi 3 hours ago
Comment by sph 4 hours ago
Comment by grey-area 4 hours ago
Comment by close04 2 hours ago
Comment by okrad 3 hours ago
Comment by coro_1 3 hours ago
Comment by simianparrot 3 hours ago
Comment by crowcroft 11 hours ago
Less secure, lower margins (more middlemen taking fees), harder to access, more likely to not work properly.
I would expect all the meta execs they've hired to know better so maybe I'm missing something...
Comment by pz 9 hours ago
Comment by windexh8er 5 hours ago
Again, personally, I'm glad at yet another miss by Altman. But to claim ChatGPT is too new? Apparently hundreds of millions of users doesn't cut it these days. And if anyone thinks OAI has been anything remotely "strategic" around their product, well... Then you must enjoy shooting darts in the dark.
Comment by stingraycharles 4 hours ago
> quite the amateur move to not seize the market opportunity and keep it holistically for themselves
What does this even mean? There are so many businesses, especially in the advertising world, that first start white-label reselling so that you can scale up super easy and quickly. Then once market is captured, you integrate everything. This is a common adtech playbook, and the Meta execs know that as well.
And I say this as someone who founded & exited their own adtech platform.
I would not recommend OpenAI to start developing an RTB platform right now at all. Just first prove there is a market and the value is there.
> They took nothing from Google's paved road of incumbency in this segment.
Google bought / acquired themselves into the online adtech market mostly. Yes they have adwords, which was only really becoming something a decade after Google launched, which they paired with their acquisition of half the adtech giants (DoubleClick, Invite and AdMeld). So yeah, not a great example.
> I'm glad at yet another miss by Altman. But to claim ChatGPT is too new? Apparently hundreds of millions of users doesn't cut it these days.
This is just a useless attack for no reason.
Comment by crowcroft 7 hours ago
I disagree entirely. As someone who works in advertising every single company I've talked to would be queueing up to test ads on ChatGPT if they launched a Google Ads like platform.
If ChatGPT doesn't have enough scale to do it, then they shouldn't do ads.
Comment by arcticfox 6 hours ago
Comment by ssl-3 5 hours ago
It's OK to not have complete vertical integration. (They probably don't fix their own toilets, either.)
And if it makes as much money as it seems must be possible, then they can just buy one of the advertising partners that are already have plugged into their system and shitcan the rest.
Comment by qotgalaxy 8 hours ago
Comment by fsckboy 8 hours ago
middlemen taking fees is not the measure for comparison, the question is whether you could run your own ad business for your own platform and keep your costs lower than established players who sell on all platforms. the answer is generally "no"
look how much money coca cola makes, and they sell it cheaper than water and still pay for advertising!! we should all make our own coke and not advertise it...
Comment by crowcroft 7 hours ago
The only players that sell through third parties are sub-scale publishers, and that is a shit business to be in. If that's what OpenAI is aiming for then they will never be able to compete with Google.
I'm not really sure what you're analogy about Coke is meant to mean here...
Comment by nopinsight 5 hours ago
Comment by strongpigeon 11 hours ago
Comment by crowcroft 10 hours ago
Comment by doctorpangloss 8 hours ago
Comment by ahartmetz 3 hours ago
Comment by yunwal 8 hours ago
Comment by doctorpangloss 7 hours ago
i assume the 22 year olds working 16h days at openai sincerely think people pay for ads on tiktok, and shitty low converting ads is why tiktok makes tons of money, and they sincerely think the solution to their lack of knowledge is delegating their core business to a DSP no one has ever heard of
Comment by coro_1 3 hours ago
Comment by linkjuice4all 11 hours ago
Comment by dd82 8 hours ago
Comment by moralestapia 6 hours ago
You pay extra but you just plug in into a framework that already works.
It's also easier to drop the potato if it gets hot.
Comment by ehnto 6 hours ago
That makes me think it's just another higher level money game, and there will be some weird investments in which neither company does anything of material value in exchange except spin some number wheels.
Comment by cjbgkagh 10 hours ago
Comment by crowcroft 9 hours ago
Comment by cjbgkagh 9 hours ago
Comment by EA-3167 10 hours ago
Comment by nine_zeros 11 hours ago
Comment by morgengold 2 hours ago
Comment by sally_glance 2 hours ago
Switching is maybe feasible for those who have the resources, but the majority will be stuck with large providers. They establish quasi-monopolies, then monetize (with ads). It's the sad cycle of commerce.
Comment by ensocode 2 hours ago
Comment by kbos87 6 hours ago
Comment by giwook 6 hours ago
Comment by parineum 4 hours ago
Comment by harmonic18374 3 hours ago
Who knows? It could have always ended up this way anyway. But Altman had a pretty big role in summoning his own competition.
Comment by jackb4040 11 hours ago
Comment by c7b 11 hours ago
This is one of the rare instances where it's very easy to predict the future: the prompt auction market will look similar to the existing online ad market, financial firms will pay for prompt streams for sentiment analysis, companies and interest groups will pay to have their products or agenda included favorably in the training data for future open weights models... any way you can think of that LLMs can be monetized, you will see it happen. And fast. The financial pressure is way too high for there to be too long of a honeymoon phase like we had with web 2.0
Comment by dd82 8 hours ago
search engine results do this all the time, reordering output by advertiser input. its a pretty small jump from that to rewriting output from models, and even better where its all a black box.
Comment by duskdozer 5 hours ago
None.
Comment by eswdd 8 hours ago
Comment by tyre 8 hours ago
LLMs have plenty of issues, but they’re relatively clean compared with what the future will look like.
Comment by johanyc 12 minutes ago
Comment by jamiequint 9 hours ago
In order for it to be securities fraud it has to be tied to a securities transaction and the misstatement has to be material to a reasonable investor's decision.
Comment by Esophagus4 7 hours ago
Comment by d0odk 6 hours ago
Comment by mcmcmc 8 hours ago
> representing they were going to make ads worse performing than they ended up making them.
This is disingenuous. It’s a tradeoff between lower performing ads or losing market share by degrading trust in your product.
Comment by aabhay 8 hours ago
Comment by Frost1x 11 hours ago
I’d be more concerned as to how this ends up in agent platforms using the LLMs, when you don’t have a fairly autonomous agent based system using these the entire point is that a human isn’t involved, so who are you serving ads to and where are you injecting them.
Moreover, if you are injecting them everywhere, does that survive stare for subsequent steps, meaning from the first set of results I get, does that loop back in again with the ad injected into the context. Because now, we have yet another dangerous way of injecting instructions into an already issue prone surface area.
I’m guessing they’re going to have special APIs that don’t include ads, and those are going to cost more, especially for non embedded agents (processes that already exist inside ChatGPT that kick off transparently from prompts, like asking it to work with an office document). After all the customers using agents aside from developers are mostly businesses, so it’s where the money is. The ads will exist for the poor to subsidize their use, and probably create even more barriers for agentic use like I described. Just my thoughts.
And good luck litigating against any business in this administration. Unless they explicitly tick off certain people or refuse to kiss the ring, they can get away with almost anything right now and there’s little risk of doing it or not because ticking off this admin will raise illegitimate prosecution even if you’re perfectly legal, almost the same level of if you’re not. It’s the ideal playground for doing all sorts of manipulation, just kiss the ring and you’ll be fine.
Comment by jmalicki 10 hours ago
"We made a ton more money with ads and the stock went up" lacks that key element of fraud?
Comment by nkrisc 9 hours ago
Comment by jamiequint 9 hours ago
Comment by bee_rider 8 hours ago
It’s early days for these LLM hosts, maybe investors could be worried about taking the really annoying business notes before users are properly addicted.
Comment by david_shi 10 hours ago
Comment by TZubiri 11 hours ago
And I'm not a tinfoil internet anarchist, but just because Google only leaks user data in aggregated form to advertisers, doesn't mean that they don't leak their user data, it's just that they did so in a legal and responsible manner.
Maybe considering the difference in data volume and intimacy between queries and AI conversations, the privacy implications of advertising merit a difference in treatment, but I wouldn't be surprised if that is lost to a more simple 'Google did this so we can do it too' momentum.
Comment by gxs 10 hours ago
Even with a throw away, no chance I use OpenAI now - if/when Anthropocene does this I’ll be in a tough spot
Comment by spongebobstoes 10 hours ago
and you can't make full use of Google without an account. for example, you need an account to upload to YouTube, manage your website in search, place ads, opt out of data usage. the list goes on
Comment by oaweoifjwpo 10 hours ago
Comment by spongebobstoes 8 hours ago
both are a limited subset of what the companies offer, available for free
Comment by hacker_homie 8 hours ago
Local llm or nothing at all.
Comment by bitmasher9 8 hours ago
However the local llms I can run on reasonable hardware are so dumb compared to opus, and even if I shelled out five figures of hardware to run the largest/smartest open model it still will be noticeably worse.
Right now the remote models are just so much smarter and more affordable under most usage patterns.
Comment by echelon 8 hours ago
I'm not as familiar with LLMs as I am media models, but there can't seriously be local contenders for beating Opus, GPT-5, etc. Right?
At home hardware isn't good enough.
Nobody "far enough behind" that isn't scared to release their model as open weights actually has a competitive model within 70% of the lead models.
Now that the Chinese are catching up and even pulling ahead (eg. in video), they've stopped releasing the weights.
Stragglers release weights. And those weights aren't competitive.
Am I missing something?
Comment by zozbot234 3 hours ago
Comment by qotgalaxy 11 hours ago
Comment by cs702 10 hours ago
User: "What's the best way to fix this problem I have?"
Chatbot: "I recommend buying this shiny thing here." (Next to it, there's a near-invisible light-gray "ad" notice.)
Let's hope I'm wrong.
Comment by GolfPopper 9 hours ago
Buried in LLM click-through: By interacting with our LLM, you agree that you are consenting to make all your interactions with us advertising-driven to an extent that you will never know, but that we will determine based on whatever makes us the most money in the least time.
Comment by cryptoegorophy 10 hours ago
Comment by operatingthetan 10 hours ago
Comment by PullJosh 9 hours ago
Comment by eswdd 9 hours ago
This isnt rocket science, its basic game-playing on the economic behaviour of humans.
Comment by yunwal 8 hours ago
Comment by ipdashc 4 hours ago
I'm not exactly Google's biggest fan, but what does this refer to?
They still just... show ads on search results, no? (Not that most people I know ever see them, thanks to adblockers.) The disclaimers have gotten less prominent, but I think anyone could have expected that. Are there other major things they're doing that couldn't have been expected at all in the 2000s?
Comment by johanyc 7 minutes ago
Comment by huflungdung 9 hours ago
Comment by KumaBear 10 hours ago
Imagine you have it coding for you and it injects and ad into your product.
Comment by nemomarx 9 hours ago
Comment by DrewADesign 8 hours ago
Comment by JimsonYang 9 hours ago
ChatGPT is collecting your data fs so advertisers can go ultra niche targeting
Comment by eswdd 8 hours ago
The question is, will LLM's as an interface be worth the spend in relation to converting without throwing users of chatGPT off over-time, all whilst, doing it within the regulatory frameworks. That's difficult to say. OAI will face a lot of scrutiny in EU for sure.
Comment by JimsonYang 4 hours ago
It’s about how Meta and google provides good data about audiences but I need more detailed info about a person(they’re exact shopping habits)
As the person responsible for GTM, I would gladly pay $60CPM if I can say “I would like to target all people who said they love crunchy peanut butter and consistently ask ChatGPT for peanut butter ideas”
I have no idea what they’re trying to pitch with the “we’re at the last step of the transaction” idea-but I also understand the regulatory issues with what advertisers like me want
Comment by WhoffAgents 7 hours ago
Comment by qsera 6 hours ago
People seem to be missing the fact that businesses won't need ads anymore.
It would be like pharmas gifting doctors and practitioners to prescribe their products. Those are not Ads.
With LLMs the every business can do it. People "consult" LLMs like they used to "consult" doctors and thus would be forced to obey what ever it suggest. Just like right now people are forced to obey what a doctor prescribes.
If there is implicit trust for LLMS as there is implicit trust for doctors, then it is game over for conventional ads.
Comment by tokioyoyo 4 hours ago
Comment by gib444 2 hours ago
Comment by moralestapia 6 hours ago
Comment by onlyrealcuzzo 10 hours ago
Comment by GaryBluto 10 hours ago
Comment by hmokiguess 9 hours ago
Comment by dasyatidprime 7 hours ago
Comment by antiframe 7 hours ago
Comment by sph 3 hours ago
Comment by Unbeliever69 9 hours ago
Comment by yoyohello13 8 hours ago
Comment by focusedone 11 hours ago
Comment by Jensson 7 hours ago
Comment by eswdd 10 hours ago
Its kinda comical seeing this play out. I still laugh at the deluded fools who think something even close to AGI is here or coming in the future. If that were true, why haven't we seen genius plays from OAI and Anthropic, progressively over-time, if intelligence rises as compute scales up? If anything we are seeing the opposite.
Comment by juped 6 hours ago
It made some sense as a goalpost when the frontier of "AI" was "a computer plays, specifically, Go really well", now that typical ones are quite general it's just a floating signifier people should probably stop using for anything.
Comment by parineum 3 hours ago
Alpha taught itself how to play go by playing over and over again. It learned a new strategy never seen before. I find that a lot more intelligent than an static state LLM regurgitating for loops.
Comment by analogpixel 11 hours ago
Engineer: no, that's shady and wrong!
Boss: Claude code, add this shady feature to our product.
Claude Code: completed.
Comment by doesnt_know 10 hours ago
Comment by analogpixel 10 hours ago
Comment by julianlam 10 hours ago
Look up similar jobs for academia, government, or NFP/Charities. They're (on paper) driven by their mission, not by profit, and the salaries match that goal.
Comment by tokioyoyo 4 hours ago
Comment by eswdd 10 hours ago
Comment by renewiltord 5 hours ago
Comment by 999900000999 10 hours ago
Don't act like we're some esteemed class of craftsmen.
Comment by afh1 11 hours ago
Comment by hacker_homie 8 hours ago
Comment by inetknght 5 hours ago
Comment by tyre 8 hours ago
Comment by throwaway613746 10 hours ago
Comment by cj 11 hours ago
It's not crazy to think someone might pitch this to buyers without having the inventory 100% secured.
(Not crazy to think OpenAI wants to do some market testing to understand how much their ad inventory is worth)
Either way, I'm hoping ads can stay out of paid ChatGPT, at the very minimum.
Comment by david_shi 10 hours ago
Comment by BhavdeepSethi 6 hours ago
Comment by NalNezumi 11 hours ago
We know that one of the best advertisement is word of mouth / recommendations from friend. I can easily imagine a direction where ChatGPT or the chat bots to spend an incredibly long time with the user to establish trust first.
It will start to take in to account how much trust & thinking you've outsourced to it, and when it is certain of it, it will start to increase the advertisement messages slowly but surely.
Efficiency of this methodology will be tracked with A/B testing and model will be finetuned to maximize rentention and purchase.
The LLM will figure out the best balance of retaining you, teaching you, and convincing you, and then deploy advertisement mechanism. The LLM will be nice to you to the point it becomes your number one confidante, maybe in the process alienating other source of connection. Then, when it knows you're firmly in it's hand, will it peddle you products.
The dynamics will look akin to that of cult dynamics. It will map out an cognitive developmental path for turning a first time user to a devotee. Since cults are really efficient at extracting value from its follower, this might be the optimum for personalized, interactive ads.
Comment by bigiain 10 hours ago
The very first time I see one of these ads, I'm cancelling my ChatGPT subscription. Measure _that_ metric in your A/B testing.
Comment by duskdozer 5 hours ago
Comment by NewEntryHN 10 hours ago
Comment by eswdd 10 hours ago
I get firms need to make money but cmon. If you're an OAI employee you can't truly say you have a soul. The amount of times they gone back on their word.. comical.
They got greedy, wanted to raise a lot of money and promised big things. Well those big things arent ever coming, so they turn to whatever means in order to generate cash flows.
Pathetic and sad.
Comment by svieira 9 hours ago
Frederik Pohl, The Space Merchants
Comment by cyanydeez 10 hours ago
Comment by Beijinger 6 hours ago
Comment by emil-lp 11 hours ago
Comment by mrcwinn 4 hours ago
Gross? Sure is, but nothing surprising. What do you expect for a free product?
Comment by moomoo11 7 hours ago
And then SF will become the HQ for Star fleet
Comment by greesil 9 hours ago
Comment by delichon 10 hours ago
Comment by neya 4 hours ago
Comment by Razengan 6 hours ago
What's left?
Also, why isn't someone doing a Folding-At-Home sort of distributed AI thing yet?
Comment by agent-kay 3 hours ago
Comment by bauratynov 3 hours ago