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.



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.