Set up an estate to protect this IP until 70 years after your death. After that I guess we're doomed, but we'll have had a good run of it until then at least!
I wish uBlock Origin would incorporate AI features too. It could automatically detect brand names and product placement and blank it all out. Works on images and video. Augmented reality glasses with uBlock Origin would be life changing.
Never would have imagine that "sit in a chair and browse the internet" would become an activity limited to the able bodied.
that is a pretty good idea
back in the day I had an adblocker which replaced the banners with your own pictures.
My local newspaper used to be wide-open. I happily subscribed but never logged in.
Then they launched a paywall, so I unsubscribed. I didn't want to be a part of their logged-in paid premium user dragnet.
The phone-call to cancel was a bit confusing for the CSR.
"May I ask why are you cancelling?"
Me: "Oh, because of the paywall"
CSR: "Oh, that's just a technical issue, we can help you with that"
Me: "Nono, you don't understand, I'm cancelling because there is _a_ paywall"
I doubt my "reason for cancelling" got coded correctly.
You know, with ads. That you pay to watch.
Cable just carried regular broadcast channels back then. The value you paid for was more channels and better picture, not avoiding ads. HBO was the first premium add-on, and it didn't have ads.
Some people set up a big dish antenna in their yard so they could get content directly off the satellite backhaul. This might not have had ads but it was a fairly big investment and you had to be sort of an AV geek to use it.
The cable provider was just a delivery mechanism. So you pay them to deliver the feeds. But they didn’t get any revenue from the content providers (or their ads).
In other words, two different companies, two different services (content vs delivery), and two different revenue models.
Paid, or ads. Paid with ads -> cancel immediately.
You can subsidize the cost of a full subscription by having ads.
I know that society at large is mostly hopeless, but here on HN we generally have the mental firepower to comprehend "It's a sliding payment scale from no ads to all ads"
Edit: You guys are welcome to be upset by this, but if you think it's wrong, please correct me. Ideally without using the one counter example of cable TV in the 90's. Monopolies bring bad behaviors.
Most (all?) streaming services offer an ad-free plan, and those are the most popular hybrid payment services by far.
Many (most?) streaming services advertise their own shows and other content ahead of other content you elect to watch even on ad free subs.
Hulu’s ad free subs have some shows that show unambiguous ads.
Prime and others muddy their interfaces with others’ “channels” and content that you can subscribe to through their service. They also show other content you can purchase or rent through them that aren’t part of your package. These things are included in search, viewing UI lists, and banner ads.
This is untrue in the US. There were ad supported cable TV channels before 1980. Most of the first cable TV channels were ad supported from the start or adopted advertising within the first few years of going on-air. For example, TBS, ESPN, and USA had ads from day one, with those launching in 1976, 1980, and 1977 respectively. Nickelodeon was ad-free at its launch in 1979 but adopted advertising in 1984.
And this also ignores that for decades before "cable" was just all the broadcast stations piped over coax as a paid service. That had ads, since those broadcast stations had ads. And even when cable channels did start appearing, most of the channels on the dial we're still these broadcast channels. So most content you were paying for had ads since day one.
There were ads from the start.
whose mid-day ad blocks (or product placements) sold…you guessed it…soap…to captive housewives.
Youtube likely tolerates it because even with a 60% revenue share going go creators, often half of viewers pay nothing (no ad views or subscription), so sponsored segments can fill the gap for the creators.
Note that Youtube premium does include the ability to skip sponsored segments though.
I'm guessing you are complaining about something that you don't even have?
Nothing absurd with that claim at all.
If content creators can't live off of the ad revenue that YouTube offers, then that is another thing to lump the blame of at the feet of YouTube. They not only turn a blind eye to content creators ruining the service I pay for, YouTube is the one themselves who has created the conditions in which the content creator feels the need to pursue external advertising.
There is obvioulsy enough advertising money in the world to support both YouTube and content creators, because that is exactly what is happening right now: advertisers are paying either YouTube or the content creator directly. For some reason, a lot of content creators can't make it by just working with YouTube, despite there being enough advertiser demand for it. That tells me that YouTube is being stingy.
[0] Which, BTW, many content creators are not properly marking up their videos to allow for the skip feature to work.
Second, you are capable of building a coherent argument, but left out that almost half of viewers don't pay. When you are a child, paying for things is frustrating and annoying, so the ones taking the money are bad. When you grow up, you realize that everything costs money to everyone, and taking money isn't really nefarious, and paying for what you consume is just honest. If you don't like the cost of something, you don't buy it. If you like the cost, you pay and it's yours.
Obviously you have passed that threshold of reasoning, so it might be worthwhile to rebalance your argument around the fact that almost half (30-50%) of viewers still feel entitled to free viewing of content. They don't boycott it, they still consume it, but they don't compensate. That leaves the honest ones to bear the cost of their consumption.
And youtube could easily ban third party sponsors in their ToS, have all advertising on their platform go through them, and completely remove it for paying customers. Just like Netflix can refuse to host any shows with product placement. It's entirely their own product decision to allow ads in their "ad free" offering.
*Ads will be served in select live and linear content
I won't be engaging in any mental gymnastics where there is some redefinition of "no ads" to mean "some ads".
The incentives will be:
1. Get people psychologically dependent in any way possible.
2. Incentivize any "creators" that help with #1. Pose as "content neutral", while actually funding and pumping any content that creates "engagement" regardless of harm.
3. Collate as much information from external sources on each user as possible.
4. User every interaction with a user to improve information leverage being accumulated by #3.
5. Feed ads to users based on surveillance-informed predicted vulnerabilities, in order to maximize ad valuations. Special shout out to scams that work, because they work, they pay.
6. Once the user experience is thoroughly enshittified, start enshittifying the ad customer market by raising prices, minimizing the margins left for product and service advertisers.
7. Present company as evidence of US strength in tech, as apposed to a scaled up, centralized, multi-directed economic parasite.
TLDR: Surveillance leveraged ads are many times worse than just ads. With AI magnifying surveillance intake and leverage to unprecedented highs.
Privacy needs to start being treated like every other security risk. Because every vulnerability will be increasingly exploited, and exploited increasingly well.
As long as it is legal to scale up conflicts of interest, such as surveillance informed manipulation, paying for and pumping up harmful "creator" content, selling ads to scammers, harms will keep scaling up.
Sites should not have any safe harbor for content they pay for, and for content they are paid to deliver.
You also forgot to elaborate on the later company life cycle where the MBAs take over and only serve themselves and the Wall Street.
Product and product development is a cost center that is cut away to bare minimum skeleton crew. Customers are an inconvenience and only exist for the company to extract maximum benefit from while offering the minimum.
Actual product support is killed, and instead user supported forums are promoted. Useful idiots do the work unpaid for a mere digital badge.
Any new product feature that actually gets developed is not for the users but for the company. Features that make it through are either more data extraction, ads, surveillance or a dark pattern to try to trick the user for more money.
Wow, that is a misanthropic take if I have ever seen one. People helping out other people for free are called "useful idiots".
While it might be an ethically bad move of the company, it certainly should not be used to disparage helpers. Otherwise, would you classify all unpaid FOSS work the work of "useful idiots"?
After they have their niche by the balls, they enshittify the product as much as the users are willing to tolerate and then some more.
How much would Vercel be willing to pay OpenAI and Anthropic to nudge ChatGPT and Claude towards producing Vercel-compatible next.js apps? Maybe the models could even ask, "Do you want me to deploy the app to Vercel using their free plan?".
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER
There will I’m sure be the ability to pay and not have ads just like there is on streaming platforms, podcasts, etc.
Or should there be tax supported free AI?
These trends combined will mean that eventually it will seem old-fashioned to use a remotely-hosted model for anything other than the most demanding tasks. Just as we don't use mainframes for computation anymore outside of niche tasks like 3D render farms.
The only people using ad-supported AI will be people who can't afford a newer device with local inference. So it will be more or less like the web today, where ads are primarily targeted and viewed by less-affluent and less-technical users.
Of course, I can't see the future, but it would take a lot for those trend lines to not converge. The only thing that could delay the convergence is true AGI, but I'm currently not a believer.
The entire banking sector would like a word.
If that happens, then I suspect we will see legislation that makes it illegal to use a model outside of those provided by approved vendors like OpenAI. The utility value of LLMs for influencing people as a propaganda and control tool is just too high for those in power to let this technology be democratized.
Look at the state of DRM for video streaming -- how much industry effort has been put into making sure consumers don't own their content? We will see an even bigger push with self-serve models.
Instead of interacting with the cloud model directly, run a simple local model to interact with the cloud model and have it filter out all the ads before they reach you.
This is already what the chatbots do when it comes to interacting with rest of the Web, instead of you visiting websites yourself, they collect the information from the websites for you and present it in a format of your choice without the websites ads.
I don't see the ad model working out for chatbots in the long run given that those AI models already are the perfect ad filter.
Wouldn’t be surprised to see paid downloadable models in the future either.
What kind of phone do you have that outperforms my gaming rig?
Technically, that means being able to install Linux, run local models, and use open-source software as we see fit.
Legally, it's opposing compliance guises that erode those rights, like backdoors or restrictions on what can run so that we no longer really in control of the hardware we own but need to adjust to the whims of the controller/operator, which could, at a moments notice, default to these dark patterns for "pragmatic reasons" of their own which don't align with your interests.
We know enough bad stories for the "internet of things" devices. Anyone interested in FOSS and control should probably invest in this angle.
No, no, no. Not any agency.
You of course auction that information off to the highest bidding agency, ie. the one who is most desperate to meet their monthly quota.
Tech question? Steer you to its cloud. Medical question? Steer you towards a sponsored treatment. Or maybe the mechanism of injury needs this lawyer to compensate?
Oh and I infer from your chat history you're about to expect a child. That house is probably too small now, so our realtor in that neighborhood can help!
They are persuasion machines
Has a friend ever brought some product up, completely out of the blue, and had you ready to buy it almost immediately? The biggest challenge traditional ads have is breaking down your defences. For friends, they're down by default. If someone is a friend, an ad doesn't have to be subtle or context sensitive, although it does help. Random suggestions from friends work.
A lot of people have friend-zoned AI and will be especially vulnerable to this novel form of manipulation. If you're the sort who treats AI as a friend, even a little bit, even subconsciously, change that. You're setting yourself up for a serious mind-job.
Will they still try to skirt the laws? Of course.
User asks for recommendation. AI generates answer saying product is absolute garbage. Company pays to simply have that portion of the answer just not appear. It will be a post-filter sentiment analysis on the original answer. Nobody can ever prove what would have appeared or not.
This is the beauty of AI - while a search engine is at least semi deterministic and you can reasonably question why it wouldn't bring up a site that is clearly relevant, AI has plausible deniability. who can ever say why it generates this answer or that?
My mistake, you're completely correct, perhaps even more-correct than the wonderful flavor of Mococoa drink, with all-natural cocoa beans from the upper slopes of Mount Nicaragua. No artificial sweeteners!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzKSQrhX7BM&t=0m13s
Just like The Truman Show, where every friend (every bot) you talk to is a secretly paid shill with a hidden agenda.
AlwaysHasBeen.jpg
The only person with your interests at heart is you.
Even if you hire someone to do the most clear cut of tasks they are balancing their interests with yours. And in all likelihood they've got half a dozen other parties who's interests they're partially juggling. Megacorp bots approximating people just adds even more layers.
It will make Qanon seem like a cute ARG.
...Which is also why people who control a lot of it are an existential threat to civilization.
The fact that we have people goosestepping to MSpaint frog meme flags and mass shooters doing it for the lulz shows how stupid things can get and will continue to be.
Multiply that by x10000 and that's the vision for the future: memelords stamping on a human face forever at the behest of the Ministry of Memes.
Route you to a shady scam center that paid for the ad spot.
User: Do I need a permit for <petty homeowner stuff that clearly falls under an exemption>?
AI: <proceeds to behave like an ass-covering bureaucrat and tells the person to file one regardless, to their detriment>
We're not gonna go full circle. We're gonna do laps.
- base tier: your code had 1% of no back doors - starter tier: your code has 100% additional chance of no back doors - security guru tier: generated code has 1000% additional probability of not having security back doors
Note: sneaky language means you have 99, 98, and 89 percent chance of backdoors respectively.
Even the AI company manages to collect licensing fees, it will also collect data about the people using it and it will be permitted to use that data for commercial purposes
That data will probbly be used for advertising purposes, whether by the AI company or some other company
This may be true, but as far as I am concerned there aren't ads anywhere thanks to uBlock (and my own DNS server as a second line of defense).
Self-hosting open source models will be the best thing to do as models and inference engines become more optimized, and hardware becomes faster.
AI chat is heading the same way. So I built a fully interactive demo that shows what an ad-supported AI chatbot could actually look like: https://99helpers.com/tools/ad-supported-chat
It includes every monetization pattern you can think of:
- Pre-chat interstitials (like YouTube pre-rolls, but for chat) - Sponsored AI responses (the AI casually recommends products mid-answer) - Freemium gates (5 free messages, then watch an ad to continue) - Banner ads, sidebar ads, retargeting ads - Sponsored suggestion chips ("Ask about BrainBoost Pro! ")