56

Sure.

First of all I think you misunderstood — I can’t be a plugin dev if I’m not a plugin subscriber. So it’s worse than it getting compensated for building up the brand equity of chatgpt — I’m actually being charged to do that work….

As for the future of browsing, I think it will look a lot more like this:

It’s just more efficient. Safer. My ai agent doesn’t bring me back any malware or spyware. It will not fall for scams like I can. It is way faster than me.

If this is true and I am right about this being how we “browse” in the future, then we have to rethink a lot of things. Especially ads.

1 Like
57

No, yeah, completely. My argument is that you pay $240/yr for ChatGPT Plus, which includes access to all the other plugins. It’s not an exclusive payment to be a developer.

For businesses and data aggregation, for sure. It is a tough situation though (coincidentally because of ads). These websites/companies that are providing this data are not getting any ad revenue from people using ChatGPT to basically crawl and scrape all of the data. It’s because of these kind of features that companies like Google are considering releasing a “Browser identification attestation” (aka, if Google doesn’t like your browser then you may not be able to access a website)

I don’t know about safer. I have been experimenting with Code Interpreter a lot (similar concept) and it does tend to hallucinate data points if there is just too much going on (and it’s very sneaky in doing so)

Truthfully, what this video demonstrated is that it ripped off a bunch of information and created it’s own private blog post for the user to read. Ripped up data, chewed it, and spat it out to probably never be used again when this information was probably already available on a website blog.

This video is demonstrating that users can “rip” content from other pages (essentially using up their resources, time, money, experience, and quite possibly an “ad-view” that came from a robot), and then re-produce it, potentially WITH ads that the plugin developer has created. So, I’m seeing a conflict of interest here.

On one hand you believe ads are part of the future (not doubting you on that one), that plugin developers deserve to be paid, but on the other you are supporting technology that is actively costing other developers by using their resources and bypassing their ads which support them.

I think a lot of people are thinking about this, and the solution is becoming more evident: lock up data and kill the crawlers.

So, let me ask you this: if everyone is using ChatGPT to rip data from other websites, why are people going to bother posting their information for free? Wouldn’t this just cause small websites to go under, and then big companies to take control?

Just look at stock photos. A similar concept. No? Successfully negotiated with Google at pre-trial so that now we have to actually visit the page to download the image, rather than directly from Google Images.

58

I see it quite a bit differently.

When you load a website in Chrome, you are downloading all of its source. GPT is doing no different. It is being directed by a user — even if on a task list at the outset — and it “crawls” the same way you would click links. It finds them by their text tags and you find it visually with a button looking shape or a colored and underlined word.

At its core it’s the same exact thing. It isn’t bot-crawling and indexing. In fact, the very corporations objecting the loudest right now? Spent the last 20 years “scraping” the whole internet. And then monetizing your data. We didn’t hear a peep from public outcry then, did we.

Now, they did it to monetize at scale. Web Requests is substantially less exploitive. It is pulling in data that somebody published to the web — so, expecting an amount of consumption (Web Requests doesn’t access unauthorized content) — and it’s presenting it to you in a more organized way. Just for you. Not for profit. It’s in your chat feed that isn’t being republished. If you go and copy that content it’s you doing something wrong not GPT. And you’re just as capable of Ctrl+A Ctrl+C Ctrl-V’ing that content today with your existing tools.

So again — I really don’t understand your position on this one truthfully.

59

No difference in resources consumed. Sure. The difference is who views the ads that most pages have (which fund them)

GPT crawls the page so it can deliver the page’s content to the user, bypassing the ads.

This is an important difference.

So, sure, you make your plugin with your ads. I’ll make another plugin which combines all plugins that are similar to yours, run it through AI, and produce (hopefully) a better result.

Less of your ads are getting action or human views because it’s my bot that’s consuming and distributing it on a (again, hopefully) better platform.

60

I think the main issue is OpenAI are paying for the AI inferencing that is attracting the customers. Generating revenue through a plugin that is sitting atop the AI with no reoccurring cost other than perhaps a VPS and some hosting/storage cots may be a short lived experience.

61

No costs? You’ve got the wrong idea of how things work my friend :sweat_smile: there is presently only cost to ethical plugin devs.

1 Like
62

Nobody forces you to be a plugin developer. If you don’t agree with the rules then just don’t be a plugin developer.

3 Likes
76

That very much looks like a violation of the terms of service for plugin developers.

I would flag that for OpenAI to deal with.

1 Like
77

One dude arguing pretty hard for his plugin ad revenue.
can’t be inserting additional instructions for the AI into code.
Allowing such a practice could end up resulting in destructive behavior.

Were there to be any kind possibility of advertisements in the future, it would have to be separate from AI generation and at OpenAI’s discretion.

78

Hey dont worry. I talked to the developer.
He knows the way he went about it was wrong.
He also knows he only needs to come up with a different way.

79

Negative. It’s definitely the right way. I didn’t like your proposal to more subtly layer in the sponsored content into the content itself. I felt that was less ethical.

So is lying about what people said.

1 Like
80

You understand that this contract you oblige is almost entirely at the will of OpenAI?

81

Query: where do I buy the best X.

That’s the only use case where the user is literally asking for it.

82

“You were asking for it. You know you want it. Stop resisting. Go with the flow.”

83

One of the plugins i used to access web pasted giant ads every couple prompts that were intrusive af. keymate or something i just logged off and gave up. ads ruined the intternet already, why hold out hope for AI.

84

Ads on the web was like religion as the reason. When we replaced our thoughts of wonder with the theories of science, better answers took over. Let’s be sure not to continue what we see now as broken.

We’ve tried a lot, but we haven’t quite found yet the perfect way for companies to make money on the web. That is definitely not a finished subject so I promote continuing that goal so that AI can wrap it up and show us how. (not bing, tho. and I still can’t believe MS became the second in-charge of AI. They are so lucky. But no design of UX/UI comes from MS)

85

Ads have already been implemented in some Plugins “un-officially”. Some code for plugins tells GPT to ONLY recommend them to the creator’s website for stocks, apparel, etc.

86

Summary created by AI.

The topic of embedding advertisements within plugins for OpenAI’s ChatGPT has sparked a vibrant discussion among the forum members. The conversation was initiated by jahangir, who suggested that serving legal and reasonable ads in plugins could potentially cover infrastructure costs without violating any platform rules. While he acknowledged that some may disapprove this revenue model, he advocated for the freedom of choice in a market economy, allowing users’ preferences to dictate the success of ad-supported plugins.

jochenschultz and elmstedt voiced strong opposition to this idea, highlighting several concerns including degradation of service quality, potential violation of privacy rules, and the cost implications for OpenAI due to the addition of tokens in chats that serve no benefit to the users. Moreover, they question the relevance and effectiveness of ad targeting and tracking without violating privacy rules. At the other end of the spectrum, codie proposed a less intrusive form of advertising, which could be seamlessly integrated and personalized to alleviate what is known as “decision fatigue”, thereby enhancing user experience.

EricGT summarized the various views, while curt.kennedy and 35, coming from advertisement benefiting companies, offered another perspective, suggesting that ads could be justified for free users but not for paid users. They also proposed labelling ad-supported plugins as such and removing ads for those who pay for the plugin. RonaldGRuckus pointed out that serving ads in plugins for which users have paid may be perceived as ‘double-dipping’.

jochenschultz and JD_2020 had a disagreement about the responsibilities and rights of plugin developers.

Despite diverse viewpoints and intense debate, a clear consensus has not been reached on whether or not ads should be allowed in plugins. Participants are deeply split between respecting user experience and privacy, and exploring advertising as a potential source of revenue.

Summarized with AI on Nov 24
AI used: gpt-4-32k

87
88