Zoë Hitzig resigned on the same day OpenAI began testing ads in its chatbot.

Hitzig did not call advertising itself immoral. Instead, she argued that the nature of the data at stake makes ChatGPT ads especially risky. Users have shared medical fears, relationship problems, and religious beliefs with the chatbot, she wrote, often “because people believed they were talking to something that had no ulterior agenda.” She called this accumulated record of personal disclosures “an archive of human candor that has no precedent.”

She also drew a direct parallel to Facebook’s early history, noting that the social media company once promised users control over their data and the ability to vote on policy changes. Those pledges eroded over time, Hitzig wrote, and the Federal Trade Commission found that privacy changes Facebook marketed as giving users more control actually did the opposite.

  • 0_o7@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    6·
    1 day ago

    Facebook was shit from the start (remember the suckerbergs " they trust me, dumb fucks" statement?). It’s more like a Google path.

    Appear useful, gather data, then become overtly evil.

  • rozodru@piefed.worldEnglish
    232·
    2 days ago

    that’s fine. ChatGPT is 100 times easier to quit and forget about than Facebook. ChatGPT serves zero benefit for most people in their daily lives. It’s extremely easy to stop using a tool that constantly hallucinates solutions.

    • pkjqpg1h@lemmy.zipEnglish
      121·
      2 days ago

      I’m not that sure for that I see people using it for literally everything

    • TheSambassador@lemmy.worldEnglish
      11·
      2 days ago

      Seriously. As someone who only did a few prompts and chats when it first came out, I do not understand what people are getting so much use out of. I guess they just mostly trust the bullshit it spits out so it seems like it saves time?

      • rozodru@piefed.worldEnglish
        7·
        2 days ago

        pretty much. you’ll see it first hand with the vibe coding shit. sure the basics will work but none of it will scale, it’ll be full of exploits, and just garbage all around. But most people simply don’t know better and trust whatever the LLM spits out.

        I mean people hail Claude as the best out there but if you know any better and you’ve spent any time with it then you’d know it’s 100% useless. not a single solution it spits out these days is correct. and Claude Code has become noticeably worse.

      • PabloSexcrowbar@piefed.socialEnglish
        21·
        1 day ago

        I kinda like it for code review, just not generation. I’ve also had it generate me some tutorials on stuff I want to learn (mostly Kubernetes) while keeping in mind that it’s probably doing the most insecure thing possible…but that’s how most of the human-written tutorials I ever followed were, anyway.

      • pkjqpg1h@lemmy.zipEnglish
        42·
        2 days ago

        I use AI for;

        • Translation
        • Grammar
        • Text editing
        • Categorization
        • Summarization
        • OCR

        I don’t use AI for;

        • Life, health, finance, legal… advice
        • Chatting
        • Quick answering
        • Researching
    • djmikeale@feddit.dk
      613·
      2 days ago

      I’d argue when advanced enough, they’d be able to replace search engines, do shopping for you, and automate some jobs. If they find a way to monopolize, I think they could. I don’t think they will, I think there will be a market bubble first. But some AI company at some point will definitely be able to replace/disrupt the market.

  • Rollade@lemmy.ml
    16·
    2 days ago

    Well im definitely not the first person that points out that you can’t ask an ai for an opinion anymore (of coarse about nothing important) because it could answer with an ad