I stumbled upon this one as well, but I do not understand it really: Why is my job safe if Ads prove there is no AGI?

Because even if there would be AGI, they could (and would?) serve ads anyway?

If your job is gone forever, with what money are you going to buy the thing in the advert? If nobody can buy the thing in the advert, the value of the ad slot itself is zero.

▲

Quarrelsome 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

who would pivot to selling ads if AGI was in reach? These orgs are burning a level of funding that is looking to fulfil dreams, ads is a pragmatic choice that implies a the moonshot isn't in range yet.

▲

andy12_ 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Because AGI is still some years away even if you are optimistic; and OpenAI must avoid going to the ground in the meantime due to lack of revenue. Selling ads and believing that AGI is reachable in the near future is not incompatible.

	▲	emp17344 31 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		>Because AGI is still some years away For years now, proponents have insisted that AI would improve at an exponential rate. I think we can now say for sure that this was incorrect.

▲

throwaway150 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yes, I don't understand it either. I think the opposite is true. If AGI happens and it becomes immensely successful, it would be the best medium to deliver ads and at the same time our jobs wouldn't be safe.

Perhaps the people who like that quote can elaborate why that quote makes sense and why they like it?

	▲	fnord77 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Nobody will have jobs and nobody will be able to buy the stuff offered in the ads
	▲	nsmdkdfk 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[dead]

▲

barbazoo 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If AGI was around the corner, they wouldn’t have to resort to what some consider a scummy way to make money. They’d would become the most valuable company on the planet, winning the whole game. Ads show you they don’t know what else to do but they desperately need money.

▲

_aavaa_ 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This doesn’t answer the actual question: why they wouldn’t just do both?

▲

fwlr 4 hours ago | parent [-]

There are costs to doing ads (e.g. it burns social/political capital that could be used to defuse scandals or slow down hostile legislation, it consumes some fraction of your employees’ work hours, it may discourage some new talent from joining).

	▲	_aavaa_ 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		You have AGI, why do you care about new talent? You have AGI to do the ads. You have AGI to pick the best ads. Isn't that the pitch of AGI? Solve any problems?

▲

KellyCriterion 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

yes but if AGI is around the corner, with what would they make money then?

Selling this AGI to a state actor? OK - this seems realistic, but for how many billions then? 100b per year?

Thats what I meant.

▲

sumedh 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> consider a scummy way to make money.

How should Chatgpt survive then?

	▲	parrellel an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Well, the obvious answer is none of these companies should.

▲

bena 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Because it shows that it’s just yet another ad delivery vehicle.

Once you go ads, that’s pretty much it, you start focusing on how to deliver ads rather than what you claim your core competency is.