Yes and even if you are paying, you’re still the product!
That’s whats happens in two sided markets. Everyone’s the product.
The original adage of “if you’re not paying, you’re the product” doesn’t necessarily rule out the converse. The fact that the grandfather comment made a freudian slip makes it funnier.
> The original adage of “if you’re not paying, you’re the product” doesn’t necessarily rule out the converse.
I believe the logical term "converse" means swapping the conclusion and the condition in a logical statement, ie converse(if A then B) = if B then A
So here the converse would be "if you're the product, you're not paying". Which doesn't exactly make sense to me as a claim to make here. Did you just mean to reinforce your first sentence? In which case, I think you mean "the inverse", not the converse. However, I have only used the word converse in a "formal logic" scope (proofs) so I'm not sure if it has a more flexible meaning in informal language use.
The converse and inverse are logically equivalent by contraposition, so it doesn't really matter which one you use. If you think through it, you can see that "if you're the product, you're not paying" is equivalent to "if you're paying, you're not the product".
Hear hear! And those who say paying is the only time one has a chance to not be the product should look at getting involved with a genuine charity or volunteer program too. There are no universal rules about this kind of thing.
Not long ago nearly everyone in the anglosphere had a habit to talk to a pastor, revealing all the dirty secrets under the veil of anonymity. The Church was an incredibly informed organization. Today OpenAI & Anthrophic are re-creating a parody on that tradition: people talk to an AI pastor, under the veil of anonymity, and divulge their darkest secrets.
Remember, if the government says it's free it almost certainly means the people are actually paying for it.
Yes and even if you are paying, you’re still the product!
That’s whats happens in two sided markets. Everyone’s the product.
The original adage of “if you’re not paying, you’re the product” doesn’t necessarily rule out the converse. The fact that the grandfather comment made a freudian slip makes it funnier.
> The original adage of “if you’re not paying, you’re the product” doesn’t necessarily rule out the converse.
I believe the logical term "converse" means swapping the conclusion and the condition in a logical statement, ie converse(if A then B) = if B then A
So here the converse would be "if you're the product, you're not paying". Which doesn't exactly make sense to me as a claim to make here. Did you just mean to reinforce your first sentence? In which case, I think you mean "the inverse", not the converse. However, I have only used the word converse in a "formal logic" scope (proofs) so I'm not sure if it has a more flexible meaning in informal language use.
The converse and inverse are logically equivalent by contraposition, so it doesn't really matter which one you use. If you think through it, you can see that "if you're the product, you're not paying" is equivalent to "if you're paying, you're not the product".
Hear hear! And those who say paying is the only time one has a chance to not be the product should look at getting involved with a genuine charity or volunteer program too. There are no universal rules about this kind of thing.
Not long ago nearly everyone in the anglosphere had a habit to talk to a pastor, revealing all the dirty secrets under the veil of anonymity. The Church was an incredibly informed organization. Today OpenAI & Anthrophic are re-creating a parody on that tradition: people talk to an AI pastor, under the veil of anonymity, and divulge their darkest secrets.