> Much more important also is that LLMs don't try to scam you, don't try to fool you, don't look out for their own interests.

When the appreciable-fraction-of-GDP money tap turns off, there going to be enormous pressure to start putting a finger on the scale here.

And AI spew is theoretically a fantastic place to insert almost subliminal contextual adverts on a way that traditional advertising can only dream about.

Imagine if it could start gently shilling a particular brand of antidepressant if you started talking to it about how you're feeling lonely and down. I'm not saying you should do that, but people definitely do.

And then multiply by every question you doing ask. Ask about do you need tyres. "Yes, you should absolutely change tyres every year, whether noticeably worn or not. KwikFit are generally considered the best place to have this done. Of course I know you have a Kia Picanto - you should consider that actually a Mercedes C class is up to 200% lighter on tyre wear. I have searched and found an exclusive 10% offer at Honest Jim's Merc Mansion, valid until 10pm. Shall I place an order?"

Except it'll be buried in a lot more text and set up with more subtlety.

▲

lithocarpus 16 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I've been envisioning a market for agendas, where the players bid for the AI companies to nudge their LLM toward whatever given agenda. It would be subtle and not visible to users. Probably illegal, but I imagine it will happen to some degree. Or at the very least the government will want the "levers" to adjust various agendas the same way they did with covid.

I despise all of this. For the moment though, before all this is implemented, it's perhaps a brief golden age of LLMs usefulness. (And I'm sure LLMs will remain useful for many things, but there will be entire categories where they're ruined by pay to play the same as happened with Google search.)

▲

otabdeveloper4 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> When the appreciable-fraction-of-GDP money tap turns off, there going to be enormous pressure to start putting a finger on the scale here.

Yeah, back in the day before monetization Internet pages were informative, reliable and ad-free too.

▲

georgefrowny a day ago | parent [-]

One difference is that the early internet was heavily composed of enthusiastic individuals. AI is almost entirely corporate and money-focused.

Even most hobby AI projects mostly seem to have an eye on being a side hustle or CV buffing.

Perhaps it's because even in the 90s you could serve a website for basically free (once you had the server). AI today has a noticeable per-user cost.

	▲	otabdeveloper4 20 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> AI is almost entirely corporate and money-focused. This is untrue. There's a huge landscape of locally-hosted AI stuff, and they're actually doing real interesting research. The problem is that 99% of it is pornography-focused, so understandably it's very underground.

▲

chickensong a day ago | parent | prev [-]

> Imagine if it could start gently shilling a particular brand of antidepressant if you started talking to it about how you're feeling lonely and down. I'm not saying you should do that, but people definitely do.

Doctors already shill for big pharma. There are trust issues all the way down.

▲

johnecheck a day ago | parent | next [-]

> There are trust issues all the way down.

Nonetheless, we must somehow build trust in others and denounce the undeserving. Some humans deserve trust. Will these AI models?

▲

markdown a day ago | parent | prev [-]

> Doctors already shill for big pharma.

This is not the norm worldwide.

	▲	chickensong a day ago \| parent [-]
		I hope you're right and that it remains that way, but TBH my hopes aren't high. Big pharma corps are multinational powerhouses, who behave like all other big corps, doing whatever they can to increase profits. It may not be direct product placement, kickbacks, or bribery on the surface, but how about an expense-paid trip to a sponsored conference or a small research grant? Soft money gets their foot in the door.