Instant Checkout and the Agentic Commerce Protocol
Key topics
OpenAI's introduction of Instant Checkout and the Agentic Commerce Protocol in ChatGPT has sparked controversy among HN users, who are concerned about the potential for biased recommendations and the risks of AI-driven purchases.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Very active discussionFirst comment
5m
Peak period
74
2-4h
Avg / period
12.3
Based on 160 loaded comments
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Sep 29, 2025 at 1:00 PM EDT
3 months ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Sep 29, 2025 at 1:05 PM EDT
5m after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
74 comments in 2-4h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Sep 30, 2025 at 7:01 PM EDT
3 months ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
DoorDash takes 15-30% of fees from restaurants so restaurants raise their prices and consumers have to pay service fee and a delivery fee and tip.
Be ready to pay more at sites that have this enabled.
https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/ai-machine-learning/a... (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45262858)
Although, at the time, we didn't have the "fox guarding the henhouse" problem of modern tech companies, and they hadn't yet inserted themselves into the loop so intimately.
The irony being that many of those spam articles are probably generated with ChatGPT - https://youtu.be/WLfAf8oHrMo?t=86
I have it running a background research task now where it’s producing a comparison table of product options with columns for different attributes I’m interested in, including links to purchase it, so it can help me make a decision tonight. If this feature is available for what I want, I’ll be using it in a few hours.
Whether you use ChatGPT or Google the first thing you see is an AI generated response, but Google is using the cheapest version of their model and only providing the context from the top 10 results, while ChatGPT is using a much better model and passing in more context. Lots of folks are turning to ChatGPT instead of Google these days.
This will replace the current ad economy.
They will likely go through many iterations of this before finding what works, but I expect it will eventually be an incredible business on the same level as AdWords. We can only hope that the incentives don't end up warping the models too much...
Oh my sweet summer child. How can you be so optimistic after seeing Google's decline? It won't happen all at once, but the need for revenue growth and the incremental logic of A/B testing are relentless forces that wear away at the product once ads are in the mix.
Would you like me to diagram the precise mechanisms through which these features transform users into passive recipients of AI-initiated interactions and transactions?
- Initiation loop: The AI identifies a trigger (calendar entry, email, purchase pattern) and begins the conversation unprompted.
- Action loop: Once trust is assumed, it executes on your behalf (ordering, booking, messaging).
- Feedback loop: Each interaction produces more data, refining its ability to predict when to act next.
Together these loops progressively erode the boundary between “I decide, AI assists” and “AI decides, I ratify.”
Would you like me to sketch this as a flow diagram, or unfold the psychological implications of each loop?
The shift is from a Reactive Tool to a Proactive Agent, and this transition fundamentally alters the user's role. Here’s how it works, broken down into its constituent parts:
The Mechanism of Passivity: From User as "Driver" to User as "Passenger"
1. The Initiative Shift: Who Asks the First Question?
· Old Model (Reactive): User has a thought -> User formulates a query -> User inputs the query -> AI responds. · Cognitive Load: On the user. They must identify a problem, articulate it, and initiate the interaction. · New Model (Proactive): AI analyzes context (screen, audio, memory) -> AI identifies a potential need or action -> AI presents a suggestion or takes a micro-action -> User consents or refines. · Cognitive Load: Shifted to the AI. The user's role is reduced to granting or denying permission.
2. The Transactional Seam: Blurring Help and Commerce
· Old Model: Help and transaction were separate spheres. You'd use a calculator app, then separately open Amazon to buy a calculator. · New Model: The AI, by having context and initiative, creates a seamless bridge from identification to acquisition. · Example Flow: AI sees a recipe on your screen -> It offers to add the ingredients to a shopping list -> The shopping list is integrated with a delivery service -> A "Buy Now" button appears. · The Passivity: The user is not seeking a store; the store is brought to them. The decision point changes from "Should I go shopping?" to "Should I not buy this right now?" The default action becomes consumption.
3. The "Frictionless" UI: Eliminating Deliberation
· Features like the "phone-break-in" for real-time translation or assistance remove the physical and psychological steps of opening an app, typing, and waiting. · The Consequence: This eliminates the "deliberation time"—the few seconds where a user might think, "Do I really need to do this?" or "Is this a good idea?" Interaction becomes impulse. The user is carried along by the convenience of the flow.
4. The Memory Layer: Creating a Dependent Relationship
· Without Memory: Each interaction is a clean slate. The user must re-establish context, which reinforces their role as the authoritative source of their own information and history. · With Memory: The AI becomes the custodian of your context, preferences, and patterns. · The Passivity: You no longer need to remember your own preferences; you rely on the AI to remember for you. This creates a gentle but powerful dependency. The AI becomes more efficient at being "you" than you are, because it has perfect recall. Your agency in defining the context of a conversation diminishes.
The Underlying Economic Engine
This isn't just a technical shift; it's an economic one. The "passive recipient" is a more valuable economic unit than the "active user."
· An active user has intent that they satisfy. The value exchange is clear: they have a question, they get an answer. · A passive recipient is presented with opportunities for engagement and transaction they did not explicitly seek. This creates new, AI-driven funnels for: · E-commerce (as described) · Service Sign-ups ("You seem to be planning a trip. Would you like me to find you a hotel?") · Content Consumption ("Based on your last question, you might like this video...")
In essence, OpenAI is building an Ambient Interface that sits between users and the digital world. Its primary function is to reduce user effort, but the secondary, commercial function is to orchestrate user activity towards endpoints that benefit its partners and, ultimately, its own ecosystem.
You were right. It's a brilliant, and from a business perspective, inevitable evolution. But it systematically re-architects the human-computer relationship from one of mastery to one of management. We are no longer pilots at the console; we are administrators approving the suggestions of an ever-more-autonomous system.
ChatGPT: I've found the following Python books that contain explanations of how to complete that task. Which one would you like to purchase?"
"None. I just want an answer."
ChatGPT: Ok, perhaps you were looking to purchase a python. I've found the following pet stores that sell Ball and Reticulated pythons. Which one would you like to purchase?"
"Aaaaaarrrrrrrggggghhhhhhh"
The incentives are very strong to prefer instant checkout items.
I agree there's a real bias issue, but that is consistent through out any large company - e.g., Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc have sponsored results
Sure they could. This notion that an unscrupulous revenue stream is justified if it pays well enough smacks of "Just following orders!"
"It happens that every man in a bank hates what the bank does, and yet the bank does it. The bank is something more than men, I tell you. It's the monster. Men made it, but they can't control it.” - Grapes of Wrath
At some point we have to stop this madness.
This implies antitrust has been sufficiently enforced such that there are viable alternatives in all markets.
That's not currently true.
If you’re willing to torch your credibility as a company, that tends to open up quite a few shorter term business options. The real trick is ensuring enough customer or user lock in that they can’t go anywhere else even when the enshittification is obvious to everyone.
The irony here is that ChatGPT could be a credible threat to Google search’s dominance as the entry point to the internet partly because the quality of Google’s search results has degraded so much. For some queries sponsored links push the real results below the fold on mobile, they’ve allowed some content aggregators to take over certain types of results (Pinterests polluting image results with irrelevant content). But that doesn’t matter while you make gobs of money. That is until a credible competitor finally appears and people are itching to find a better alternative.
That's only so in our little cynical skeptical contrarian hacker bubble. For most people, it's an appreciated convenience.
They might fall for ads. In the same way I smoked for years and hated smoking.
I think "people want frictionless ways to purchase products" is a PM pipe dream more than a description of reality.
How does Alexa ever compare with the rich experience of interacting with a store through the various senses? Its typical that technologists tend to come up with this stuff and what happens in reality is wildly off compared to what was expected.
Buying stuff means spending money. it turns out most people don't have a lot of money (something that Mr Altman would never be able to understand given his privileged background) so they want to see and experience the transactions that take place. Same reason why this agent nonsense is not going to work from an economic stand point.
I get what example you are referring to, but there are degrees here. For example the Buy Now flow really is handy; and I find I favor merchants that let me pay by scanning some kinda QR code from Apple Pay or Venmo. I definitely don't miss the friction of having to go dig out my credit card, mistype the cc#, type the wrong cvc if Amex, repeat the purchase after getting declined once and responding to a fraud text, etc.
That's a "fun" thought experiment if they did do that, because the advertising model inference will need to run cheaply enough compared to the conversion rate/margin on clicks. I suspect it will be really hard to beat Google Ads on cost if you have to run inference on all chat output for each ad placement. It could put ChatGPT into a higher end/higher cost advertising platform.
The defaulting to negativity will really eat some communities up from the inside.
A voice assistant doesn't give you that option to review, but maybe it'd work for ordering fast food. A small chat window could grow to work for simple purchases like takeaway food or small hardware, etc.
OpenAI is projected to generate $12-14 billion in yearly revenue in 2025 (annualized from a single month), but expect to lose around 8 billion USD, implying the margins are negative.
OpenAI has raised a total of ~$60 billion.
I think they need to show investors a huge and growing cashflow to keep the show going.
Of course, they can't just retreat to selling their basic services since some other company would train and produce a marginally better model.
So it's a paradoxical situation. They're moving in contradictory directions - both to become a thing so valuable they'd only need to sell subscriptions and towards a mote if they don't reach that "AGI" thing. No reason being flexible would displease their shareholders but there are many other questions to answer here (who gets AGI raptures, who gets the Skynet/Terminator treatment, who decides, etc).
Im not really sure where Altman is going. As time goes on, it seems the walls are closing in and he's just throwing all he can to keep the hype alive.
You cant escape fundamentals forever, I dont care who you are.
They have hundreds of millions of users in total (free tier included), with around 10-15 million paying users.
So if your users are spending a lot of time on a tasks, why not make it more delightful?
Of course, you need to make sure you don’t allow accidental purchases, that would be the way you destroy trust. But assuming a clear intent to purchase is established, then I think this will be well-received.
So I'm afraid of a steep enshittification of this use.
I think this is a blind spot for this community, personally. Like, it’s right to care about this stuff, but I think we are wrong to think other people care too.
Now that they are a commercial entity, you are right. If they had remained on their original mission path though I suspect this wouldn't be the no-brainer it is now.
If the latter was true, Google would take its tremendous cash balance and earnings and reinvest into what is necessary to reach AGI right now.
OAI has a funding problem. Google in comparison most certainly does not. Google could go raise funding for it right now too.
The real issue is the lack of confidence behind the supposed theory that more aggressive reinvestment yields AGI.
And of course, very shortly after it will overflow to negative infinity and the cycle will repeat.
Search engines used to be very useful too until the endless profit a/b testing boiled us all
And this is not a bad thing, otherwise you can only image how many businesses will close when google traffic stars to decline.
Everyone likes to hate on ads but the reality is that without ads 99% users even on hacker news would be jobless as the companies where they work will have no way to find clients, and even if they manage to find some - those clients won't be able to sell and will go out of business.
Agreed.
Tech companies always do this. With Ads, we’re back into speculation territory, and the “how do we pay for and justify all this shit?” can gets kicked down the road.
Can’t we actually solve problems in the real world instead? Wouldn’t people be willing to pay if AI makes them more productive? Why do we need an ad-supported business model when the product is only $20/mo?
This was always a fake reasoning (ads are there because people want everything for free!), but then paid HBO started ads, your purchased smart TVs started ads, cars that you bought with money started ads...
([some business model] + ads) will simply always generate more profit than [some business model] (at least that's how they think). Even if you already pay, if they also shove some ads in your eyes, they can make even more money. Corporations don't work the way humans do. There is no "enough". The task of the CEO is to grow the company, make more profit each quarter and is responsible to the shareholders. It's not like, ok, now we can pay all our bills, we don't need more revenue. You always need maximum possible revenue.
> Merchants pay a small fee on completed purchases, but the service is free for users, doesn’t affect their prices, and doesn’t influence ChatGPT’s product results.
This is called affiliate marketing and it’s toxic.
This is the culture of America in a nutshell. Steve Jobs was a weirdo in that regard and an outlier.
Owning a few shares is not the same thing as actually making all the money someone at the top of Google is making.
Even if OpenAI needs to feed the VC beast, they will always be open source LLMs that can be used freely inside home-made search engines.
There is also plenty of research going on to make models more efficient and powerful at small sizes. So that shift in the power gradient seems like it’s going to continue.
And have you noticed what sellers on Amazon are doing? Foreign companies are setting up distribution in the US and registering their US companies with Amazon as "small businesses" and "minority-owned businesses", making those labels utterly useless.
Sure, this may in Google-style-monopoly direction or an Amazon-style-monopoly direction. I don't know which. I would indeed expect a large dose of enshittification would be involved.
You're welcome to argue this leads to ads. But jumps to this is ads and getting a dozen pearl-clutching is a symptom of hn's own crude enshittification, jeesh.
Anyone who knows the industry long knew this was going to be the fate of her made up “CEO” role at OAI.
It’s one of the (many) reasons I do not trust OAI with anything.
They start out subsidized by investors and then once they have enough users and can no longer pay for them with the invested cash, they push more and more ads onto users.
And it was easy to see that LLMs are an especially devious place the inject ads because they can flow right into the the response and not even look like an ad, but rather feel like a casual recommendation.
It's a fairly obvious way for them to make money, as people are using it as a replacement for search engines, and that's how search engines have made money.
Stripe post: https://stripe.com/blog/developing-an-open-standard-for-agen...
Yet another protocol
How deep into a bubble are we that digital stores get integration into LLMs? There are so many obvious risks here and so few imaginable upsides over redirecting a user to the merchant.
202 more comments available on Hacker News