WHAT HISTORY TEACHES US ABOUT OPENAI’S PROMISES
OpenAI says it will keep ads separate from answers and protect user privacy. These assurances may sound comforting, but, for now, they rest on vague and easily reinterpreted commitments.
The company proposes not to show ads “near sensitive or regulated topics like health, mental health or politics”, yet offers little clarity about what counts as “sensitive”, how broadly “health” will be defined, or who decides where the boundaries lie.
Most real-world conversations with AI will sit outside these narrow categories. So far OpenAI has not provided any details on which advertising categories will be included or excluded. However, if no restrictions were placed on the content of the ads, it’s easy to picture that a user asking “how to wind down after a stressful day” might be shown alcohol delivery ads. A query about “fun weekend ideas” could surface gambling promotions.
These products are linked to recognised health and social harms. Placed beside personalised guidance at the moment of decision-making, such ads can steer behaviour in subtle but powerful ways, even when no explicit health issue is discussed.
Similar promises about guardrails marked the early years of social media. History shows how self-regulation weakens under commercial pressure, ultimately benefiting companies while leaving users exposed to harm.
Advertising incentives have a long record of undermining the public interest. The Cambridge Analytica scandal exposed how personal data collected for ads could be repurposed for political influence. The “Facebook files” revealed that Meta knew its platforms were causing serious harms, including to teenage mental health, but resisted changes that threatened advertising revenue.
More recent investigations show Meta continues to generate revenue from scam and fraudulent ads even after being warned about their harms.
Discover more from PressNewsAgency
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.