ChatGPT Introduces Lower-Priced Subscription Tier, Ads Coming Soon

[Apple MessagePad]

I am in the minority in that AI has not appealed to me from the get go (due the the cognitive, emotional, social and environmental implications) and I have not willingly used it. I am hoping that this (predictable) move at least begins to make it unappealing to more people. It seems many people can at least agree on not wanting to use technology riddled with ads in which the user becomes the product (which is arguably the case with all plans anyways).

Because ads on this website have made it unappealing to people? Ads on every social media platform have made them unappealing? Come one, ads don't make useful things unappealing to people.

 

[brunerd]

Do you get a discount if it proposes you un-alive yourself? Goodnight subscriptions

 

[delsoul]

With Scam Altman at the helm, no chance I’ll be going back to GPT anytime soon. Pretty much every AI platform has had to become political somehow and it’s a drag. Would be nice to have a fully open, unbiased, uncensored AI available that helps its users accomplish tasks. No weird political leanings or lobbying involved.

 

[dba415]

ChatGPT is desperate and are running out of money. They might not be a company in 12 months, I am serious. I don't think ads will help them, it will only turn people away. Why use chatgpt when you can use Claude or Gemini and get zero ads?

 

[punkwood]

With Scam Altman at the helm, no chance I’ll be going back to GPT anytime soon. Pretty much every AI platform has had to become political somehow and it’s a drag. Would be nice to have a fully open, unbiased, uncensored AI available that helps its users accomplish tasks. No weird political leanings or lobbying involved.

Indeed, but none of the internet has operated this way since before 1995. You would have to have technology untangled from capitalism to achieve what you desire. Unfortunately aint happenin.

Also, I urge people to reconsider the implications of this "cognitive offloading" that everyone is beginning to fetishize. Even the seemingly rote and menial tasks that we wish to offload to a corporation's data collecting machine are ones that are worth doing. Our psyche and biology benefits from them, we aren't meant to achieve a world in which all that we spend our time on is creative output without "inconvenience".

Thinking otherwise is falling victim to a gross narrative of "productivity" and "progress".

And we could never achieve that anyways because the goal posts will just continue to shift and we will continue to chase the latest and greatest tech.

 

[NightfallOrchid]

You can be objectively impressed by the technology and find uses for it and still be critical of it and decide that it is not for you. I'll rephrase something I wrote in another thread.

Arguments for the few "beneficial" use cases of various social and productivity technologies (AI, automation, social media etc) are rarely weighed against the downsides as they pertain to both the individual, the environment and society at large. The entities in control can't afford to allow us to just let some use cases trickle in and ignore the rest, they need to create a flood, and we repeatedly open the gates for them.

Unfortunately, because the majority don't have enough of an understanding of capitalism and the way it is wedded with tech to draw a line in the sand with this stuff (or, they don't care, or they embrace capitalism etc.).

Tech fetishists at worst embrace it all or, at best, say "I am skeptical of a lot of uses of AI, but I champion the few, individual benefits we can get from it."

The trajectory is not in the hands of the consumer, and for those who are in charge, they cannot afford to just let small use cases trickle in through the cracks, they need to open the floodgates. And of course, we open the gates for them.

For me, the few conveniences that AI could bring to my life do not outweigh the cons that the march of technology are unleashing on the environment, society and individuals. Further, and more importantly, I would argue whether they are conveniences in the long run, I am not a proponent of "cognitive offloading" of small tasks, which I think are beneficial to our learning and psyche, building new pathways of thinking, building various psychological resiliences and opening room for meditative time in your day to day life.

I don't use any of it and have drawn my line with technology. At this point, with the experiences, perspective and knowledge that I have now, I wish I had drawn that line when the smartphone came out, and then again when social media started taking the shape of Facebook and then Instagram. Won't make the same mistake again with this next wave of "innovation", none of which has the best interests of people or the planet in mind, only capital. A life intertwined with capitalism, consumerism and warped views of "productivity" is one I would prefer to distance myself from.

That’s a well thought out response and I agree with most of it. However, I don’t think that ‘drawing lines in the sand’ for oneself is particularly useful, it won’t stop progress or the adoption of the technology by the majority. Unfortunately, there is no obvious way to stop the abuse of the technology, and I prefer to at least be in the know, instead of letting it blindside me.

That being said, I can see some of the effects firsthand. For example, I’m part of the generation who is still capable of writing emails or reports on my own. I, very rarely, use ChatGPT to proofread something I’ve written, and only if I’m really unsure about it. Some of my younger colleagues, however, are seemingly incapable of even replying to a simple email without letting ChatGPT write it entirely. This overreliance is obviously not going to be beneficial in the long run. But, ignoring the technology myself will not change that. I prefer to use it where it benefits me, and ignore it where it doesn’t.

Then again, I’m generally very open and interested in new technologies (not AI specifically), so that might color my perception…

 

[Ad47uk]

OpenAI is 57 billion dollars in debt so of course they're adding new revenue sources.

Really? WOW. I knew that they were not in profit yet, but never realised they were that much in debt.
The problem with this A.I stuff is that it costs a lot of money to keep running.

They are not going to get anything from me, not interested in using this A.I stuff.

 

[zarmanto]

What’s with all the negativity toward ChatGPT or AI in general? Is it really so inconceivable for some people that you can find real use for these tools, as long as you are mindful of their limitations? ...

But see, their inherent limitations are the very crux of the matter, to me. All of these "AI" tools are being marketed with a term that carries a great deal more promise and even historical criticality than any of them will ever be able to live up to. Interestingly, the jokes in this thread about the issue carry more insightfulness than those posters may realize... because the very fact that we are perfectly comfortable comparing this current technology jokingly to the fictional representations of what we expect out of actual artificial intelligence is in its own way revealing of just how little credibility the term "AI" now has, thanks to its application within the context of these tools. In reality, we are nowhere close to replicating even the most fundamentally basic of any of those fictional AIs.

And that is my own personal pet peeve with regards to these tools; not that I think they don't have uses (quite to the contrary, as I use them myself now and again) and not that they have limitations, with the result that they make weird crap up and get things wrong a shockingly large percent of the time (though that does force me to temper my expectations when I use them) ... but rather, simply that they're essentially being advertised falsely by pretty much every company which markets a product in this category. Including ChatGPT, Google and yes, even Apple. The failure of Apple to fulfill their original vision without needing to run to Google for help in the eleventh hour is indicative of this issue.

And I don't claim to be particularly unbiased or anything. I get that my own issue is a fringe complaint. But it still bugs me. I just feel like redefining a term to mean what you want it to mean instead of looking up the traditionally accepted definition and using it accordingly has become the norm rather than the exception, and that dishonesty in marketing is assumed and accepted by far too many people, rather than rebuked as it should be. In fact, it feels a little bit like we're rapidly progressing down the path towards creating the world's first edition of the Newspeak Dictionary. 1984 was written as a warning... not an instruction manual.

And it honestly kind'a confuses me that these issues don't bug more people.

 

[NightfallOrchid]

But see, their inherent limitations are the very crux of the matter, to me. All of these "AI" tools are being marketed with a term that carries a great deal more promise and even historical criticality than any of them will ever be able to live up to. Interestingly, the jokes in this thread about the issue carry more insightfulness than those posters may realize... because the very fact that we are perfectly comfortable comparing this current technology jokingly to the fictional representations of what we expect out of actual artificial intelligence is in its own way revealing of just how little credibility the term "AI" now has, thanks to its application within the context of these tools. In reality, we are nowhere close to replicating even the most fundamentally basic of any of those fictional AIs.

And that is my own personal pet peeve with regards to these tools; not that I think they don't have uses (quite to the contrary, as I use them myself now and again) and not that they have limitations, with the result that they make weird crap up and get things wrong a shockingly large percent of the time (though that does force me to temper my expectations when I use them) ... but rather, simply that they're essentially being advertised falsely by pretty much every company which markets a product in this category. Including ChatGPT, Google and yes, even Apple. The failure of Apple to fulfill their original vision without needing to run to Google for help in the eleventh hour is indicative of this issue.

And I don't claim to be particularly unbiased or anything. I get that my own issue is a fringe complaint. But it still bugs me. I just feel like redefining a term to mean what you want it to mean instead of looking up the traditionally accepted definition and using it accordingly has become the norm rather than the exception, and that dishonesty in marketing is assumed and accepted by far too many people, rather than rebuked as it should be. In fact, it feels a little bit like we're rapidly progressing down the path towards creating the world's first edition of the Newspeak Dictionary. 1984 was written as a warning... not an instruction manual.

And it honestly kind'a confuses me that these issues don't bug more people.

That’s absolutely true, the advertising does not fit the actual capabilities. It’s conditioned by shareholder expectations, and pretend ‘perfection’ simply sells better than ‘Hey look, we know this is not perfect, but there are genuine uses for this anyway’. I don’t give much stock to advertising, and generally assume it to be mostly nonsense. I prefer to see for myself whether it fits my needs or not.

 

[H.E. Pennypacker]

I utilize ChatGPT a lot for business, research etc. it’s not the only tool I use but certainly one that has improved productivity for me in many ways. I would like to see a in between version. Between plus and pro. Maybe a $50 a month that offers more of what the pro can offer. I find a lot of value in the service personally.

 

[punkwood]

That’s a well thought out response and I agree with most of it. However, I don’t think that ‘drawing lines in the sand’ for oneself is particularly useful, it won’t stop progress or the adoption of the technology by the majority. Unfortunately, there is no obvious way to stop the abuse of the technology, and I prefer to at least be in the know, instead of letting it blindside me.

That being said, I can see some of the effects firsthand. For example, I’m part of the generation who is still capable of writing emails or reports on my own. I, very rarely, use ChatGPT to proofread something I’ve written, and only if I’m really unsure about it. Some of my younger colleagues, however, are seemingly incapable of even replying to a simple email without letting ChatGPT write it entirely. This overreliance is obviously not going to be beneficial in the long run. But, ignoring the technology myself will not change that. I prefer to use it where it benefits me, and ignore it where it doesn’t.

Then again, I’m generally very open and interested in new technologies (not AI specifically), so that might color my perception…

Unfortunately, I agree. There are the affects on society at large, the affects on the environment and the affects on the individual. I only have control over one of those, and it is equally as important to me as the other two, so I am at least exercising that control. I agree about staying in the know as well, but my method is to do so as an observer, not a consumer.

Using it where it benefits a person makes sense, but there isn't a monolithic agreement on what a benefit is, which I think is one of my major contrasting points with proponents of this technology. What many see as beneficial, to me, appears to be what I referred to earlier as cognitive offloading. I have no desire for that any more than I have a desire for a robot to do my dishes or sweep my floors. I value those tasks as being something more than oft-derided "chores". It is a time for meditation, for working with your hands, for engaging with your environment in various ways, and to then see the result of that effort. It is meaningful to me. When it comes to digital tasks, they mostly involve my hobbies of photography and maintaining a travel blog. The steps that it takes me to get to the end results of these tasks (editing, sorting, renaming, writing, sharing and so forth) are as worthwhile to me as the end result as I feel my end result is only as rewarding as it is because of the journey. On a simply philosophical and existential level, I do not wish to take any more shortcuts in my day to day tasks than what modern technology already provides me.

And in many aspects of my life (film photography, bicycle riding and restoration, purchasing and listening to music, reading books, bookbinding, camping and backpacking, to name a few of my pursuits), I have already chosen to eschew many modern conveniences and find the results to be much more meditative, rewarding, challenging and interesting. I only have a short life to live and would prefer to spend it appreciating the tools and methods that I already have, many of which have existed for countless years and focusing on a deep work, without having my attention pulled away by new ways to take shortcuts (and therefore more ways to consume, spend money, and hand some of my agency over to powers that do not have my best interest in mind).

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

 

[Siliconguy]

Come one, ads don't make useful things unappealing to people.

If they annoy me enough I'll deliberately buy from a competitor. Looking at You Fred Meyer.

 

[Debauch]

Likely responses here are being analyze by AI so, to help, price mountain bad down go banana lion has a peepee in shampoo that has been sitting on the counter.

 

[capamac]

I asked chatgpt to write a paragraph for this thread:

"Honestly, I get why OpenAI is trying to monetize more — the infrastructure costs for these models are huge and they’ve already introduced the Go tier at $8/mo with better access than the free tier. But mixing ads into a paid experience feels like a slippery slope, and I worry that even if Plus/Pro stays ad-free for now, this could set a precedent that undermines trust long-term. It’d be one thing to keep ads strictly on free tiers, but when they start creeping into subscriptions people pay for just to avoid them, that’s a model I personally won’t support."

 

[ProbablyDylan]

I wonder where they get the data for targeting advertisements. It's a good thing people aren't dumping their desires, emotions, thoughts into some kind of machine they have control of.

 

[NightfallOrchid]

Unfortunately, I agree. There are the affects on society at large, the affects on the environment and the affects on the individual. I only have control over one of those, and it is equally as important to me as the other two, so I am at least exercising that control. I agree about staying in the know as well, but my method is to do so as an observer, not a consumer.

Using it where it benefits a person makes sense, but there isn't a monolithic agreement on what a benefit is, which I think is one of my major contrasting points with proponents of this technology. What many see as beneficial, to me, appears to be what I referred to earlier as cognitive offloading. I have no desire for that any more than I have a desire for a robot to do my dishes or sweep my floors. I value those tasks as being something more than oft-derided "chores". It is a time for meditation, for working with your hands, for engaging with your environment in various ways, and to then see the result of that effort. It is meaningful to me. When it comes to digital tasks, they mostly involve my hobbies of photography and maintaining a travel blog. The steps that it takes me to get to the end results of these tasks (editing, sorting, renaming, writing, sharing and so forth) are as worthwhile to me as the end result as I feel my end result is only as rewarding as it is because of the journey. On a simply philosophical and existential level, I do not wish to take any more shortcuts in my day to day tasks than what modern technology already provides me.

And in many aspects of my life (film photography, bicycle riding and restoration, purchasing and listening to music, reading books, bookbinding, camping and backpacking, to name a few of my pursuits), I have already chosen to eschew many modern conveniences and find the results to be much more meditative, rewarding, challenging and interesting. I only have a short life to live and would prefer to spend it appreciating the tools and methods that I already have, many of which have existed for countless years and focusing on a deep work, without having my attention pulled away by new ways to take shortcuts (and therefore more ways to consume, spend money, and hand some of my agency over to powers that do not have my best interest in mind).

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

Perhaps we are thinking of different uses for AI. The things you mentioned, like photography or your travel blog, are things that AI should not be allowed to touch. These are things where the enjoyment is in the process! AI can be a useful tool for many things, but not a replacement for personal engagement with the things you care about.

It’s an incredibly difficult problem to solve, to let people, who can make responsible use of the technology, use it as they see fit, while mitigating the risks to society at large…

 

[usmaak]

This model the fastest-growing segment for streaming entertainment services, no surprise AI services are doing it as well.

I was going to say that this is like every other service out there with their ad tier that you still pay for. They have found a way to monetize people’s desire to get stuff as cheap as possible. I’d rather go without than to pay money AND see ads.

Of course not nearly everyone detests advertising as much as I do.

 

[buckwheet]

So instead of just getting hallucinations, you also get pitched whatever crap they've decided you want! Fun!!!
Very Black Mirror.

 

[buckwheet]

What’s with all the negativity toward ChatGPT or AI in general? Is it really so inconceivable for some people that you can find real use for these tools, as long as you are mindful of their limitations? I was never interested in AI, but I tried ChatGPT a couple of months ago and have been using it a lot since then. Even if it’s not perfect (nothing is), I can’t imagine how jaded you must be not to be at least slightly impressed with what’s possible today, and to be unable to imagine genuine uses for the technology…

The tricky thing is that once this moves from cool and impressive research to a paid product—and now with the ultimate intrusion of ads—any kind of "wow, it can do that?" kinda goes out the window unless it does it pretty much perfectly. That's not the user's fault. A product that proposes to do a certain thing has to do that thing. Unfortunately, generative AI has the problem of being implicitly stochastic, so it's very hard to know when it's going to do the wrong thing. Which means its errors represent a whole new class of "bug", with tons of potential for becoming a real nightmare.

If the world were sane, we'd just be starting to see these models as products now, and they'd be open public betas. But that's not the path they chose, and they deserve every ounce of ire they're generating because the issues with the product are new in a truly problematic way—i.e., implicitly non-reproducible errors. Folks who use the stuff daily for coding (like myself) have learned the limitations and just work around them with lots of guardrails and double-checking. But that's not a true "consumer" product, imho. That's a specialized industry tool for a very patient audience who will swallow the shortcomings to absorb the benefits, with the understanding that strategic use can get around (most) of the problems.

 

[punkwood]

Perhaps we are thinking of different uses for AI. The things you mentioned, like photography or your travel blog, are things that AI should not be allowed to touch. These are things where the enjoyment is in the process! AI can be a useful tool for many things, but not a replacement for personal engagement with the things you care about.

It’s an incredibly difficult problem to solve, to let people, who can make responsible use of the technology, use it as they see fit, while mitigating the risks to society at large…

To the first point, for me, I also apply the same mode of thinking to things that I don't care about or pursue for personal engagement. That's what I meant to demonstrate with my sweeping and doing the dishes analogies (yes I am conflating AI and automation here, but they exist largely on the same principles). Even the tasks that people deem less desirable or enjoyable I believe are worthwhile in the way they affect the building blocks of our brains. Purchasing plane tickets, taking notes, writing work emails, navigating or phones and computers, doing research for an article or essay, and so forth.

To the second point, there just isn't a way to do that when the technology is not in the hands of the people using it. Meaning the consumers are not in control of it. As mentioned earlier, those who finance it cannot afford to let us pick and choose how to use it, they need to ensure that the highest percentage of us as possible adopt the highest usage rate. The resources they have are immense and they've perfected the art of getting us on board with "modern conveniences". Its a process that is as old as capitalism itself, but has been really perfected with data collecting, advertising and algorithm technologies in social media (which is what all social media platforms since at least Facebook actually are). We are very susceptible to the marketing and social manipulation. Unless the majority say no to all of it, we will have all of it infiltrating society.

However, as with anything in my life, I feel it healthy to take a stance against something that I don't want to support, despite knowing that I won't change the affects of it. Besides, I see these technologies at odds with the life I want to live which is one in pursuit of quiet, calmness, simplicity, frugality and closer to the outdoors, other humans, and analog pursuits.

Much of my argument is very subjective to me and the way that I want to live my own life. But, on the whole, I would posit that these technologies in general are just further steps in the destruction of nature and human agency and decency. May sound extreme to some, but this is the conclusion I have come to over many years of thinking very seriously about technology, capitalism, environmentalism and the human condition.

 

[Dr McKay]

I can’t wait for students to copy and paste the entire text block (adverts included) into their assignments, and for the professors/teachers to question why there’s an advert for Burger King in the middle of their essay. I’ve seen so many screenshots of students essays that end with the stereotypical ChatGPT “Let me know if there’s anything else I can help you with” type message.

 

[tomtad]

Yea, they’re getting desperate.

I give them a year till it collapses

 

[Ctrlos]

And now you'll never know if the answer you asked for was the one you should have gotten or the one that they were paid to promote. Even with sponsored content, it makes the entire product untrustworthy. And if you can't trust it, why does it even exist?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Is this choice by OpenAI an unwitting early preview of how they're going to monetize their amazing new Segway Jony Ive mystery device? Put it on your desk or in your pocket, and it'll be a virtual magnet drawing "relevant" ad content toward you unless you pay a higher tier of subscription fee?

 

[NMBob]

And HEEEEERE we go. The free version will be littered with ads and before you know it all these prices will double in a few years. Oh and AI energy usage is 1000x worse for the environment than driving gas cars around that will "kill the planet".

But they should be the most intelligent ads on the Internets. Right? When you're thinking cars there's Chevy ads. When you are thinking **x there's hooker ads.