Google is winning on every AI front

I also think adtech corrupting AI as well is inevitable, but I dread for that future. Chatbots are much more personal than websites, and users are expected to give them deeply personal data. Their output containing ads would be far more effective at psychological manipulation than traditional ads are. It would also be far more profitable, so I'm sure that marketers are salivating at this opportunity, and adtech masterminds are hard at work to make this a reality already.

The repercussions of this will be much greater than we can imagine. I would love to be wrong, so I'm open to being convinced otherwise.

There's lots of ways to do that which don't hurt trust. Over time Google lost it as they got addicted to reporting massively quarterly growth, but for many years they were able to mix in ads with search results without people being unhappy or distrusting organic results, and also having a very successful business model. Even today Google's biggest trust problem by far is with conservatives, and that's due to explicit censorship of the right: corruption for ideological not commercial reasons.

So there seems to be a lot of ways in which LLM companies can do this.

Main issue is that building an ad network is really hard. You need lots of inventory to make it worthwhile.

But financial nightmare scenarios aside, I'm more concerned about the influence from private and government agencies. Advertising is propaganda that seeks to separate us from our money, but other forms of propaganda that influences how we think and act has much deeper sociopolitical effects. The instability we see today is largely the result of psyops conducted over decades across all media outlets, but once it becomes possible to influence something as personal as a chatbot, the situation will get even more insane. It's unthinkable that we're merrily building that future without seemingly any precautions in mind.

I hope local models remain viable. I don't think ever expanding the size is the way forward anyway.

I highly doubt advertisers will settle for a solution that's less profitable. That would be like settling for plain-text ads without profiling data and microtargeting. Google tried that in the "don't be evil" days, and look how that turned out.

Besides, astroturfing and influencer-driven campaigns are very popular. The modern playbook is to make advertising blend in with the content as much as possible, so that the victim is not aware that they're being advertised to. This is what the majority of ads on social media look like. The natural extension of this is for ads to be subtly embedded in chatbot output.

"You don't sound well, Dave. How about a nice slice of Astroturf pizza to cheer you up?"

And political propaganda can be even more subtle than that...

Besides, Meta is currently the leader in open-source/weight models. There's no reason that US companies can't continue to innovate in this space.

An ideal answer for a query like "Where can I take my wife for a date this weekend?" would be something like,

> Here are some events I found ... <ad unit one> <ad unit two> <ad unit three>. Based on our prior conversations, sounds like the third might be the best fit, want me to book it for you?

To get that you need ads. If you ask ChatGPT such a question currently it'll either search the web (and thus see ads anyway) or it'll give boring generic text that's found in its training set. You really want to see images, prices, locations and so on for such a query not, "maybe she'd like the movies". And there are no good ranking signals for many kinds of commercial query: LLM training will give a long-since stale or hallucinated answer at worst, some semi-random answer at best, and algorithms like PageRank hardly work for most commercial queries.

HN has always been very naive about this topic but briefly: people like advertising done well and targeted ads are even better. One of Google's longest running experiments was a holdback where some small percentage of users never saw ads, and they used Google less than users who did. The ad-free search gave worse answers overall.

Also you don't need ads to answer what to do, just knowledge of the events. Even a poor ranking algorithm is better than "how much someone paid for me to say this" as the ranking. That is possibly the very worst possible ranking.

Is making decisions the hardest thing in life for so many people? Or is this instead a desire to do away with human capital — to "automate" a workforce?

Regardless, here is this wild new technology (LLMs) that seems to have just fallen out of the sky; we're continuously finding out all the seemingly-formerly-unimaginable things you can do with it; but somehow the collective have already foreseen its ultimate role.

As though the people pushing the ARPANET into the public realm were so certain that it would become the Encyclopedia Galactica!

I think a big commercial opportunity for ChatBots (as was originally intended for Siri, when Apple acquired it from SRI) is business referral fees - people ask for restaurant, hotel etc recommendations and/or bookings and providers pay for business generated this way.

>... ads would become the main option to make money out of chatbots.

What if people were the chatbots?

https://youtu.be/1iqra1ojEvM?si=xN3rc_vxyolTMVqO

This is what I see motivating non-technical people to learn about agents. There’s lots of jobs that are essentially reading/memorizing complicated instructions and entering data accordingly.

1. People who can afford personal assistants and staff in general gladly pay those people to do stuff for them. AI assistants promise to make this way of living accessible to the plebs.

2. People love being "the idea guy", but never having to do any of the (hard) work. And honestly, just the speedup to actually convert the myriad of ideas floating around in various heads to prototypes/MVPs is causing/will cause somewhat of a Cambrian explosion of such things.

But I think we have to get away from the thinking that “Chinese models” are somehow created by the Chinese state, and from an adversarial standpoint. There are models created by Chinese companies, just like American and European companies.

It's not really about suppressing the knowledge, it's about suppressing people talking about it and making it a point in the media etc. The CCP knows how powerful organised people can be, this is how they came to power after all.

When Gemini says "Apple products are unreliable and overpriced, buy a Pixel phone instead". Google can just shrug and say "It's just what it deduced, we don't know how it came to that conclusion. It's an LLM with its mysterious weights and parameters"

I suggest reducing the tolerance towards the insistence that opinions are legitimate. Normally, that is done through active debate and rebuttal. The poison has been spread through echochambers and lack of direct strong replies.

In other terms: they let it happen, all the deliriousness of especially the past years was allowed to happen through silence, as if impotent shrugs...

(By the way: I am not talking about "reticence", which is the occasional context here: I am talking about deliriousness, which is much worse than circumventing discussion over history. The real current issue is that of "reinventing history".)

How much a click is worth to a business is a very good ranking signal, albeit not the only one. Google ranks by bid but also quality score and many other factors. If users click your ad, then return to the results page and click something else, that hurts the advertiser's quality score and the amount of money needed to continue ranking goes up so such ads are pushed out of the results or only show up when there's less competition.

The reason auction bids work well as a ranking signal is that it rewards accurate targeting. The ad click is worth more to companies that are only showing ads to people who are likely to buy something. Spamming irrelevant ads is very bad for users. You can try to attack that problem indirectly by having some convoluted process to decide if an ad is relevant to a query, but the ground truth is "did the click lead to a purchase?" and the best way to assess that is to just let advertisers bid against each other in an auction. It also interacts well with general supply management - if users are being annoyed by too many irrelevant ads, you can just restrict slot supply and due to the auction the least relevant ads are automatically pushed out by market economics.

The obvious way to integrate advertising is for the LLM to have a tool to search an ad database and display the results. So if you do a commercial query the LLM goes off and searches for some relevant ads using everything it knows about you and the conversation, the ad search engine ranks and returns them, the LLM reads the ad copy and then picks a few before embedding them into the HTML with some special React tags. It can give its own opinion to push along people who are overwhelmed by choice. And then when the user clicks an ad the business pays for that click (referral fee).

Should I take this job or that one? Which college should I go to? Should I date this person or that one? Life has some really hard decisions you have to make, and that's just life. There are no wrong answers, but figuring out what to do and ruminating over it is comes to everyone at some point in their lives. You can ask ChatGPT to ask you the right questions you need asked in order to figure out what you really want to do. I don't know how to put a price on that, but that's worth way more than $20/month.

People used to (and still do) pay fortune tellers to make decisions for them. Doesn’t mean they’re good ones.

This is obvious when looking at something extremely competitive like securities. Having your broker set you up with the counterparty that bid the most to be put in front of you is obviously not going to get you the best trade. Responding to ads for financial instruments is how you get scammed (e.g. shitcoins and pump-and-dumps).

Well yeah, that's how evolution works: it's an exploration of the search space and only the good stuff survives.

> filled with hallucinations,

The end products can be fully AI-free. In fact, I would expect most ideas that have been floating around to have nothing to do with AI. To be fair, that may change with it being the new hip thing. Even then, there are plenty of implementations that use AI where hallucinations are no problem at all (or even a feature), or where the issues with hallucinations are sufficiently mitigated.

> unable to ever get past the first step.

How so? There are already a bunch of functional things that were in Show HN that were produced with AI assistance. Again, most of the implemented ideas will suck, but some will be awesome and might change the world.

Sure, there are many situations where users make mistakes and do some bad deal. But there always will be, that's not a solvable problem. Is it not the nirvana fallacy to describe the potential for suboptimal outcomes as an issue? Search engines and AI are great tools to help users avoid exactly that outcome.

Take insurance, for example — do you actually enjoy shopping for it?

What if you could just share a few basic details, and an AI agent did all the research for you, then came back with the top 3 insurance plans that fit your needs, complete with the pros and cons?

Why wouldn’t that be a better way to choose?

What I need is something to troll through the garbage Amazon listings and offer me the product that actually has the specs that I searched for and is offered by a seller with more than 50 total sales. Maybe an AI agent can do that for me?

[1]: https://www.policygenius.com/

You didnt get the point, instead of going to such website for solving the insurance problem, going to 10 other websites for solving 10 other problems, just let one AI agent do it for you.