Say hello to the enshittification of AI:
"Many people frame the problem of funding A.I. as choosing the lesser of two evils: restrict access to transformative technology to a select group of people wealthy enough to pay for it, or accept advertisements even if it means exploiting users’ deepest fears and desires to sell them a product. I believe that’s a false choice. Tech companies can pursue options that could keep these tools broadly available while limiting any company’s incentives to surveil, profile and manipulate its users.
OpenAI says it will adhere to principles for running ads on ChatGPT: The ads will be clearly labeled, appear at the bottom of answers and will not influence responses. I believe the first iteration of ads will probably follow those principles. But I’m worried subsequent iterations won’t, because the company is building an economic engine that creates strong incentives to override its own rules. (The New York Times has sued OpenAI for copyright infringement of news content related to A.I. systems. OpenAI has denied those claims.)
In its early years, Facebook promised that users would control their data and be able to vote on policy changes. Those commitments eroded. The company eliminated holding public votes on policy. Privacy changes marketed as giving users more control over their data were found by the Federal Trade Commission to have done the opposite, and in fact made private information public. All of this happened gradually under pressure from an advertising model that rewarded engagement above all else.
The erosion of OpenAI’s own principles to maximize engagement may already be underway. It’s against company principles to optimize user engagement solely to generate more advertising revenue, but it has been reported that the company already optimizes for daily active users anyway..."
#AI #GenerativeAI #OpenAI #LLMs #ChatGPTs #Chatbots #BigTech #AdTech #Privacy #DataProtection
