Korva is a scroll of the internet’s best ideas.
Agents shouldn't be funded by ads
Smarter than the user
Picture a world where the assistant is more socially aware and book-smart than the person using it. If it pushed the user toward a purchase or subscription they didn't want, it would be using that intelligence against them. Google, TikTok, Instagram, and Snapchat show how that goes: they're free to users, paid ads push people toward purchases, and brands pay to convince them.
Ads and incentives
That is the logic behind the line that if you aren't paying, you're the product. An assistant supported by advertisers would have the same pull on it, with a better ability to persuade.
Weighing a request
The same design handles a request that isn't well meant. A task accomplisher does whatever it's told, while an assistant guided by objectives such as earning the user's trust and watching their back can weigh the request first.
How do ad-funded platforms shape behavior?
When advertisers pay for a platform, the platform earns money by capturing attention and steering it. In its 2023 annual report, Alphabet reported that about 77 percent of its revenue came from advertising. Meta's 2023 annual report put its figure at about 98 percent. Recommendation systems at those companies are tuned to keep people engaged, because engagement is what advertisers buy.
Where does the product saying come from?
The line that if you aren't paying, you're the product is often traced to a 2010 comment on the community site MetaFilter by a user named Andrew Lewis. An earlier version appeared in Television Delivers People, a 1973 video by the artists Richard Serra and Carlota Fay Schoolman. That video argued that commercial television sells its audience to advertisers. The phrase has since been applied to nearly every free online service.
Can AI be more persuasive than people?
A 2025 study in Nature Human Behaviour by Francesco Salvi and colleagues put GPT-4 in online debates against human opponents. When the model could use basic personal information about its opponent, it was more persuasive than the human debaters. The researchers noted that it could tailor its arguments to each person. The study tested short debates on contested topics, with participants who knew a debate was taking place.
More from Invest Like the Best with Patrick O'Shaughnessy
