Thread

1. mavsman · 1789923911 · focus · HN ↗

   To me, this quote just about sums it up:

   > The mechanism is standard adtech. What has no precedent is running it on an AI chat product.

   As someone who has been well aware of this mechanism for quite some time, I still feel icky anytime I re-read the details of it.

   What a time to be alive.

   1. clickety_clack · 1789924907 · focus · HN ↗

      Whenever I say something like “that’s a cool feature, but to do it you would have to build spyware”, everyone else is just like “the cat is out of the bag ¯\_(ツ)_/¯”. (I don’t build spyware, or work on projects that do).

      It blows my mind that people don’t care about the world they are building with this stuff. It’s a real tragedy of the commons. People see these collaborators from different wars and regimes and think “I’d stand up against the bad guy”… well I’ve got news for you if you build spyware, you are not the person you think you are.

      1. brookst · 1789926745 · focus · HN ↗

         I'm pretty unhappy with this, but are ChatGPT or Facebook really "the commons"?

         1. clickety_clack · 1789932319 · focus · HN ↗

            I think the internet in general is a commons and I should be able to browse it without being spied on.

            There should be general standards for what individual apps and websites should be allowed to do. There should be an expectation that the purpose of an app is what it does, i.e. a social connection app shouldn’t be an ad platform that suffers users insofar as they provide useful data to sell to advertisers.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.