行业精选

Patrick Collison:个人智能体将让产品质量信息成为新的 SEO

"a corollary is that information about product quality will become more important and impactful" T...

精选理由

Stripe 的 Collison 提出个观点:以后 AI 帮你比价调研,商家会像刷 SEO 一样去迎合模型的偏好,质量信息成新战场。

Stripe CEO Patrick Collison 发文讨论个人智能体进入经济后的影响。他认为智能体相当于替每个人做了约 10 小时的购买调研,会削弱价格歧视和交叉补贴策略,比如优惠券和忘记取消的订阅费。由此推论,产品质量信息会变得更有价值,各公司会像过去做 SEO/AEO 那样,针对顶级模型 posttraining 时优化过的偏好去包装自己的信号。LlamaIndex 创始人 Jerry Liu 转发评论:即便智能体能做深度评估,也难有真正无偏的基准,最终公司会去优化用户评价和反馈。

原文 · Jerry Liu

"a corollary is that information about product quality will become more important and impactful" T...

"a corollary is that information about product quality will become more important and impactful" This feels like the next evolution of SEO/AEO that every product will try to game. Even if agents do the equivalent of ~10 hours of research on a product, it's less important on whether the product is actually better vs. the agent's perception that the product is better. Agents might do deep research on evals and benchmarks; yet anyone who's worked on evals knows that it's hard to create a truly unbiased one that can universally measure product quality. They might optimize for human preferences, in which case companies will optimize for user reviews and feedback. Companies will optimize for whatever preferences the top AI models have been posttrained on. Patrick Collison @patrickc Assorted things I've been mulling over regarding agents in the economy: • Companies are in some sense the original superintelligence. It's often the case that they can use their amortized cognitive surplus to advance their interests against those of certain consumers: relative to the optimization capacity of companies, consumers can be inattentive, underinformed, irrational, etc. (Think, say, of some of the classic insurance upsells at the end of a booking process, which is typically priced substantially above what a regular policy would cost.) Herbert Simon introduced the idea of bounded rationality, and firms often end up benefiting from it. Thanks to personal agents, we will probably get somewhat more rational in how we engage with companies. • How exactly will outcomes change? Well, certain kinds of price discrimination will work less well (how do coupons work if every agent hunts fastidiously for them?), and certain kinds of customer cross-subsidy will change (today, people who forget to cancel subscriptions subsidize those who don't). Taken across the economy as a whole, I'm not sure what the incidence of all of this will be. • In corporate strategy, people have long debated the relative importance of distribution and product quality. Perhaps you've made something better, but does anyone know about it? Won't people just continue to buy the ACME Corp Mousetraps? Personal agents will, I think, act as a kind of structural subsidy for product quality. How would markets look different if individuals always spent at least 10 hours researching their purchases? On the margin, focusing on making a product better is, I think, going to become a more effective strategy for companies. This is good! • It true, a corollary is that information about product quality will become more important and impactful. Today, most people have very limited ability to aggregate and integrate such data, but agents will have insatiable thirst for such signals. (It's often said that data is becoming more valuable because it helps in the training of models. That's obviously true, but I think there's a secondary way in which it's more valuable simply as a complement to cheaper intelligence.) • A big question is whether agents will increase superstar effects (rational agents all settle on the same product) or increase dispersion (because everyone has slightly different tastes and preferences, which agents are good at eliciting, finally overcoming the artificial clustering we've been subjected to). • Many internet companies have monetized demand routing, which is in turn often predicated on short attention spans. "I'll click on the first thing I see." This has led to some amount of inefficiency, as companies try to propitiate capricious ranking algorithms and incur various placement fees. It's not all deadweight loss (willingness to pay is itself a kind of signal, which is valuable to buyers), but it's not great. How will the nature and value of this routing change in a world of personal agents? I don't know the answer, but I think that the effects might be pretty big. • Much of what I'm writing hinges on the assumption that personal agents will be on the consumer's side. I suspect that that will be the winning strategy, but whether it's true, and what it means to be true, involves a lot of other questions. Taken as a whole, the market is a massively parallelized, decentralized, and highly imperfect value attribution machine, and, taking stock of all of the effects, it seems to me that the quality point may well be the biggest: that agents will change the nature of the backpropagation such that the rewards for better products increase. Maybe this is too optimistic, but I suspect (and hope) that companies that make things that they're proud of will feel that the universe is a little more partisan in their favor. 🔗 View Quoted Tweet 💬 8 🔄 0 ❤️ 4 👀 847 📊 7 ⚡

  • Harrison Chase10-09 07:50原文