If they start doing that without clear distinction what is an ad, that would be a sure way to lose users immediately.
So more like SEO firms "helping you" move your rank on Google, than Google selling ads.
I'd imagine "undetectable to the LLM training orgs" might just be service with a higher fee.
With SEO, it’s pretty easy to see the results of your effort. You either show up on top for the right keywords or you don’t. With LLM’s there is no way to easily demonstrate impact, at least I’d think.
Similarly, the black box AI models guarantee the owners can just shrug and say it's not their fault if the model suggests Wonderbread(r) for making toast 3.2% more frequently than other breads.
If Clorox fills their site with "helpful" articles that just happen to mention Clorox very frequently and some training set aggregator or unscrupulous AI company scrapes it without prior permission, does Clorox have any responsibility for the result? And when those model weights get used randomly, is it an advertisement according to the law? I think not.
Pay attention to the non-headline claims in the NYT lawsuit against OpenAI for whether or not anyone has any responsibility if their AI model starts mentioning your registered trademark without your permission. But on the other hand, what if you like that they mention your name frequently???
Marketing on your own site will have effects on an AI just like it will have an effect on a human reader. No disclosure is required because the context is explicit.
But the moment OpenAI wants to charge for Clorox to show up more often, then it needs to be disclosed when it shows up.
Yes, I agree with this. But what about paying a 3rd party to include your drivel in a training set, and that 3rd party pays OpenAI to include the training set in some fine tuning exercise? Does that legally trigger the need for disclosure? You aren't directly creating advertisements, you are increasing the probability that some word appears near some other word.
At every point, there's always a rationalization like this available, that you can use to calm yourself down and embrace the suck. "They're marking it clearly". "Creators need to make money". "This is good for business, therefore Good for America, therefore good for me". "Some ads are real works of art, more interesting to watch than the actual programming". "How else would I know what to buy?".
The truth is, all those rationalizations are bullshit; you're being screwed over and actively fed poison, and there's nothing you can do about it except stop using the service - which quickly becomes extremely inconvenient to pretty much impossible. But since there's no one you could get angry at to get them to change things for the better, you can either adopt a "justification" like the above, or slowly boil inside.
" our model will occasionally recommend advertiser sponsored content"