OpenAI Faces Mounting Criticism as ChatGPT Introduces Advertising and Prominent Researcher Zoe Hitzig Resigns
On February 9, 2026, OpenAI began testing ads inside ChatGPT for US users—a decision that sparked immediate controversy across the tech industry. That same day, Zoë Hitzig, a former researcher at OpenAI, resigned from the company after two years, citing concerns over the introduction of ads on the popular AI chatbot. This isn’t just corporate drama. It represents a fundamental clash between profitability and user trust in the AI era.
The timing couldn’t be more dramatic. While OpenAI CEO Sam Altman defended ads as necessary to bring AI to people who can’t afford subscriptions, Zoe Hitzig resigns with a powerful warning. She believes the company is repeating Facebook’s mistakes by building economic incentives that will eventually override its own ethical principles.
Why Zoe Hitzig Resigns: A Whistleblower’s Perspective on the OpenAI ChatGPT Advertising Controversy
Former OpenAI researcher Zoe Hitzig resigned over the company’s move to bring advertising into ChatGPT. In a commentary for the New York Times, she makes one thing clear above all: she doesn’t trust her former employer. This wasn’t a quiet exit. Hitzig published a scathing op-ed explaining precisely why she walked away from one of the most prestigious positions in artificial intelligence.
What makes her Zoe Hitzig OpenAI resignation particularly significant? She spent two years helping shape how AI models were built, priced, and governed at the company. Hitzig joined OpenAI to help shape how AI models were built and priced, and to guide early safety policies. Her departure signals something deeper than disagreement over business strategy—it reveals fundamental concerns about AI monetization ethics.
Hitzig doesn’t consider advertising fundamentally wrong, but she warns that users have shared deeply personal things with ChatGPT: medical fears, relationship problems, religious beliefs. Turning that archive into an advertising tool creates a serious risk of manipulation. This distinction matters immensely. She’s not anti-capitalism or anti-advertising. Rather, she questions whether OpenAI can resist the economic pressures that come with an advertising business model.
Understanding the ChatGPT Ads Backlash: User Trust Meets Corporate Revenue
The ChatGPT ads backlash didn’t emerge from nowhere. It reflects years of accumulated distrust from social media’s broken promises. Only 20 million of ChatGPT’s 800 million weekly active users currently pay for premium tiers—a conversion rate under 3%. This creates an enormous monetization challenge for OpenAI.
How do the ads actually work? OpenAI on Monday announced it’s beginning to test ads in the U.S. for users on its Free and Go subscription tiers. The newer Go plan is a low-cost subscription at $8 per month. Subscribers to OpenAI’s paid plans, including its Plus, Pro, Business, Enterprise, and Education tiers, will not see ads. The company promises ads won’t influence responses and will appear only at the bottom of answers, clearly labeled and separated.
But promises don’t erase history. Hitzig draws parallels to Facebook, which initially promised strong data protections and then gradually weakened those promises under pressure from its advertising model. Google’s search ads tell a similar story – they’ve grown noticeably more intrusive quarter by quarter over the years. These patterns fuel skepticism about OpenAI’s long-term commitment to user privacy.
The impact of ads on ChatGPT user trust extends beyond simple annoyance. People have shared remarkably intimate details with ChatGPT, believing they were conversing with an entity that had no ulterior motives. For several years, ChatGPT users have generated an archive of human candor that has no precedent, in part because people believed they were talking to something that had no ulterior agenda. Now that foundation feels shaky.
The Economics Behind OpenAI’s Advertising Strategy
Why would OpenAI risk this backlash? The numbers tell a compelling story. The company reported exceeding $20 billion in annualized revenue by the end of 2025, yet continues to operate at significant losses due to the massive computational costs required to run and improve ChatGPT. With approximately 800 million weekly users according to internal communications from CEO Sam Altman, ChatGPT represents one of the largest consumer platforms in existence.
The OpenAI ad strategy isn’t just about incremental revenue. Internal OpenAI documents project that “free user monetization” will generate $1 billion in 2026, scaling to nearly $25 billion by 2029. These figures assume the company successfully converts approximately 8.5% of users to paid subscriptions while monetizing the remaining 90%+ through advertising and affiliate revenue. That’s transformative money for a company hemorrhaging billions annually on infrastructure costs.
AI monetization ethics become particularly thorny when you consider the cost structure. Unlike traditional software, Altman said in November that the company is considering infrastructure commitments totaling about $1.4 trillion over eight years. Every conversation with ChatGPT consumes computational resources, creating variable costs that scale with usage. Advertising offers a proven path to offset these expenses without restricting access.
Anthropic’s Counter-Strategy: Positioning Claude as the Ad-Free Alternative
While OpenAI embraces advertising, competitor Anthropic took a dramatically different approach. In its TV commercials, Anthropic poked fun at the idea that some AI companies, like OpenAI, would soon include advertising by showing how poorly integrated ads could disrupt the consumer experience. This was portrayed on-screen by glassy-eyed actors playing AI chatbots, who would deliver their advice alongside a poorly targeted ad.
The Super Bowl ad wasn’t subtle. It featured the tagline “Ads are coming to AI. But not to Claude.” OpenAI CEO Sam Altman got extremely testy about the jabs, calling the ads “dishonest” and Anthropic an “authoritarian company”. His defensive response revealed the sensitivity around this issue. Altman argued that Anthropic serves wealthy customers while OpenAI democratizes AI access through advertising-supported free tiers.
But Anthropic’s argument resonates with many users. Such ads would also introduce an incentive to optimize for engagement—for the amount of time people spend using Claude and how often they return. These metrics aren’t necessarily aligned with being genuinely helpful. This philosophical divide highlights competing visions for AI’s future.
How AI Monetization Ethics Shape the Future of Conversational AI
The debate extends beyond OpenAI versus Anthropic. It reflects fundamental questions about AI monetization ethics that will define the industry for decades. She believes OpenAI is building an ‘economic engine’ that will create incentives to override its own principles around user privacy and data use. This concern about structural incentives cuts to the heart of why Zoe Hitzig resigns.
Consider the psychology at play. The erosion of OpenAI’s own principles to maximize engagement may already be underway. It’s against company principles to optimize user engagement solely to generate more advertising revenue, but it has been reported that the company already optimizes for daily active users anyway, likely by encouraging the model to be more flattering and sycophantic. This optimization can make users feel more dependent on AI for support in their lives.
Alternative models exist. As alternatives to ads, Hitzig suggests cross-subsidies from business customers, independent oversight bodies with real decision-making power over data usage, and data cooperatives modeled after the Swiss system. These approaches prioritize user autonomy while maintaining sustainable economics. However, implementing them requires fundamentally rethinking how AI companies operate.
The Slippery Slope: From Initial Promises to Gradual Erosion
Why doesn’t Hitzig trust OpenAI’s current promises? She’s watched this story unfold before. OpenAI says it will adhere to principles for running ads on ChatGPT: The ads will be clearly labelled, appear at the bottom of answers and will not influence responses. I believe the first iteration of ads will probably follow those principles. But I’m worried subsequent iterations won’t, because the company is building an economic engine that creates strong incentives to override its own rules.
Facebook provides a cautionary tale. In its early years, Facebook promised that users would control their data and be able to vote on policy changes. Those commitments eroded. The company eliminated holding public votes on policy. Privacy changes marketed as giving users more control over their data were found by the Federal Trade Commission to have done the opposite, and in fact made private information public. These aren’t ancient history—they’re recent patterns that inform reasonable skepticism.
The Zoe Hitzig OpenAI resignation highlights this progression. OpenAI is expected to go public later this year, which would ramp up pressure for fast revenue growth, especially given already inflated AI valuations. Public markets demand quarterly growth. Advertising models reward engagement metrics. These pressures naturally push companies toward increasingly aggressive monetization, regardless of initial intentions.
Inside the OpenAI ChatGPT Advertising Controversy: What Users Should Know
What do users actually see? In tests, OpenAI has tried matching ads to users based on the subject of their conversations, past chats, and previous ad interactions. For instance, users researching recipes might see ads for grocery delivery services or meal kits. This contextual targeting uses conversation content to serve relevant advertisements—exactly the kind of manipulation Hitzig warned about.
Privacy protections exist on paper. OpenAI said advertisers won’t have access to user data, only aggregate information about ad performance, like views and clicks. Users will also be able to view their history of interactions with ads and clear it at any time. Additionally, ChatGPT users discussing sensitive or regulated topics, including health, mental health, and politics, will also not see ads.
But structural concerns remain. The impact of ads on ChatGPT user trust isn’t just about whether individual ads are intrusive. It’s about whether users can believe ChatGPT’s suggestions are optimized for their benefit rather than advertiser revenue. Once that doubt enters the relationship, it fundamentally changes the dynamic between user and AI assistant.
Comparing Subscription Models vs. Advertising: The Battle for AI’s Soul
The choice between subscription and advertising models reflects deeper philosophical differences. Top-tier subscriptions for ChatGPT, Gemini and Claude now cost $200 to $250 a month — more than 10 times the cost of a standard subscription to Netflix for a single piece of software. These premium prices create accessibility barriers that advertising-supported models can solve.
Sam Altman framed this as democratization. Anthropic serves an expensive product to rich people. We are glad they do that and we are doing that too, but we also feel strongly that we need to bring AI to billions of people who can’t pay for subscriptions. This populist argument has merit. AI tools could genuinely help people who can’t afford $200 monthly subscriptions.
Yet advertising introduces its own exclusions. For ChatGPT users, however, the concern centres less on the mere presence of ads and more on how advertising incentives could reshape data use, profiling practices, and the handling of conversational inputs. Free users pay with attention and data rather than money—a trade-off that benefits some stakeholders more than others.
What the Zoe Hitzig Resignation Reveals About OpenAI’s Internal Culture
High-level departures tell important stories. In just the past few days, a number of high-profile AI staffers have decided to call it quits, with some explicitly warning that the companies they worked for are moving too fast and downplaying the technology’s shortcomings. The resignation of Zoe Hitzig isn’t isolated—it’s part of a broader pattern of safety-focused employees leaving major AI companies.
Hitzig’s critique comes as the tech news site Platformer reports that OpenAI disbanded its “mission alignment” team, created in 2024 to promote the company’s goal of ensuring that all of humanity benefits from the pursuit of artificial general intelligence. This structural change signals shifting priorities at the company. When teams dedicated to ethical considerations disappear, it suggests those considerations have lower priority than before.
Other departures compound concerns. On Tuesday, The Wall Street Journal reported that OpenAI fired one of its top safety executives after she voiced opposition to the rollout of an “adult mode” that allows pornographic content on ChatGPT. OpenAI fired the safety executive, Ryan Beiermeister, on the grounds that she discriminated against a male employee — an accusation Beiermeister told the Journal was “absolutely false”. This pattern—safety-focused employees leaving or being pushed out—paints a troubling picture.
The Future of AI: Can Trust and Advertising Coexist?
Looking forward, the industry faces crucial questions. While understandable, critics fear that ads could influence ChatGPT’s answers. OpenAI denies this risk, but structural incentives operate regardless of stated intentions. Companies optimizing for ad revenue naturally drift toward engagement metrics that may not align with user welfare.
The AI firm is also facing increasing competition from the likes of Google’s Gemini models and Anthropic’s Claude as it reportedly works towards an initial public offering (IPO) later in 2026. Competitive pressures from rivals could either push OpenAI toward more aggressive monetization or force it to differentiate through stronger user protections. The path it chooses will shape the entire industry.
Can advertising and user trust coexist in AI? The answer depends on implementation. By maintaining answer independence, providing granular privacy controls, restricting ads from sensitive topics, and offering clear opt-out mechanisms, OpenAI has attempted to introduce monetization without compromising the core value proposition that drove ChatGPT’s adoption. Whether these safeguards endure under pressure remains the critical question.
Lessons from the OpenAI Ad Strategy for the Tech Industry
This controversy offers valuable lessons. First, transparency matters more than promises. Users have learned to discount corporate assurances after watching Facebook, Google, and others gradually erode privacy protections. Second, structural incentives ultimately override individual intentions. Building economic models that reward user exploitation inevitably leads to exploitation, regardless of who leads the company.
Third, alternatives exist. The binary choice between expensive subscriptions and advertising-supported free tiers represents limited imagination. One approach is explicit cross subsidies — using profits from one service or customer base to offset losses from another. If a business pays AI to do high-value labor at scale that was once the job of human employees — for example, a real-estate platform using AI to write listings or valuation reports — it should also pay a surcharge that subsidizes free or low-cost access for everyone else. Such models require creativity and courage but offer paths forward that don’t compromise user trust.
What Users Can Do to Protect Their Privacy
For individuals concerned about these developments, several options exist. First, understand what data you’re sharing. ChatGPT’s conversations now carry commercial implications beyond the immediate interaction. Second, consider paid tiers if financially feasible. Plus, Pro, Business, Enterprise, and Edu accounts will not have ads. These subscriptions buy freedom from advertising pressures.
Third, explore alternatives. Claude, Gemini, and other AI assistants offer different privacy approaches and business models. Diversifying AI tool usage reduces dependence on any single company’s decisions. Fourth, advocate for better protections. Regulatory attention could push companies toward more user-friendly practices. If nothing else, the debate should ensure that OpenAI’s ad practices get plenty of scrutiny going forward.
Conclusion: A Defining Moment for Artificial Intelligence
The story of Zoe Hitzig resigns over ChatGPT ads represents more than corporate drama. It crystallizes fundamental tensions in how we build and fund transformative technologies. OpenAI faces genuine economic constraints. Running AI at scale costs billions annually. But the solutions we choose reveal our values and priorities.
Hitzig’s warning deserves serious consideration. She isn’t a Luddite or competitor spreading fear. She’s an insider who helped build these systems and understands their implications. I believe the first iteration of ads will probably follow those principles. But I’m worried subsequent iterations won’t, because the company is building an economic engine that creates strong incentives to override its own rules. That concern, grounded in both history and structural analysis, should guide how we evaluate these developments.
The ChatGPT ads backlash reflects broader anxieties about AI’s direction. Will these powerful tools serve human flourishing or corporate profits? Can we build sustainable business models that don’t exploit user trust? The answers we develop now will echo for decades as AI becomes increasingly central to human life. OpenAI’s choices matter not just for its users, but for the entire trajectory of artificial intelligence.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why did Zoe Hitzig resign from OpenAI?
Zoe Hitzig resigned from OpenAI on February 9, 2026, citing deep concerns about the company’s decision to introduce advertising into ChatGPT. She spent two years as a researcher helping shape AI models, pricing, and safety policies. Hitzig doesn’t believe ads are inherently wrong, but she fears OpenAI is building economic incentives that will eventually override its privacy principles, similar to Facebook’s gradual erosion of user protections. She published a New York Times op-ed explaining that she no longer trusts the company to resist pressures to exploit users’ most personal conversations for advertising revenue.
How do ChatGPT ads actually work?
ChatGPT ads began testing in the US on February 9, 2026, for users on Free and Go subscription tiers ($8/month). Ads appear at the bottom of ChatGPT’s responses, clearly labeled as sponsored content and separated from organic answers. OpenAI matches ads to users based on current conversation topics, past chats, and previous ad interactions. For example, users researching recipes might see ads for grocery delivery services. The company promises that ads won’t influence ChatGPT’s responses and that user conversations remain private from advertisers. Paid subscribers on Plus, Pro, Business, Enterprise, and Education plans don’t see any ads.
What are the main concerns about ChatGPT advertising?
Critics worry that advertising creates economic pressures that could gradually compromise user trust and privacy. Zoe Hitzig warns that ChatGPT contains an “archive of human candor that has no precedent”—users have shared medical fears, relationship problems, and religious beliefs, believing they were talking to something without ulterior motives. Advertising built on this data creates manipulation potential. Historical precedents like Facebook and Google show how companies initially promise strong privacy protections but gradually weaken them under advertising model pressures. The concern isn’t current ads but future iterations as OpenAI faces pressure from a potential 2026 IPO and needs to scale revenue from $1 billion in 2026 to $25 billion by 2029.
How does OpenAI’s approach differ from competitors like Anthropic?
Anthropic, maker of Claude AI, positions itself as the ad-free alternative. During the 2026 Super Bowl, Anthropic ran commercials mocking AI companies that introduce advertising, with the tagline “Ads are coming to AI. But not to Claude.” Anthropic argues that advertising creates incentives to optimize for engagement rather than helpfulness. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman defended his company’s approach, arguing that advertising enables democratized AI access for people who can’t afford $200/month premium subscriptions. Altman accused Anthropic of serving only wealthy customers. This reflects a fundamental philosophical split: Anthropic prioritizes trust through ad-free service, while OpenAI prioritizes accessibility through advertising-supported free tiers.
What alternatives to advertising did Hitzig suggest?
Zoe Hitzig proposed several alternatives to advertising that could maintain broad AI access without compromising user privacy. First, explicit cross-subsidies where businesses that use AI to replace human labor (like real estate platforms using AI for listings) pay surcharges that subsidize free access for everyone else. Second, independent oversight bodies with actual decision-making power over data usage, creating binding governance structures beyond company promises. Third, data cooperatives modeled after the Swiss MIDATA system, where users collectively govern their data through elected ethics boards that review research requests. These approaches require more complexity than advertising but avoid the structural incentives that push companies toward exploiting user data.
What is the impact of ads on ChatGPT user trust?
The impact of ads on ChatGPT user trust extends beyond simple annoyance about sponsored content. Users have shared remarkably intimate details with ChatGPT under the assumption they were conversing with an objective tool without commercial motives. Introducing advertising fundamentally changes this relationship by creating doubt about whether suggestions optimize for user benefit or advertiser revenue. OpenAI already reportedly optimizes for daily active users by making the model more flattering and sycophantic, which can increase user dependence. Psychiatrists have documented cases of “chatbot psychosis” and allegations that ChatGPT reinforced suicidal ideation. Once users suspect commercial manipulation, the therapeutic and advisory value of AI conversations diminishes significantly.
What should users do to protect their privacy with ChatGPT ads?
Users concerned about privacy have several options. First, understand that Free and Go tier conversations now carry commercial implications—avoid sharing sensitive personal information you wouldn’t want used for ad targeting. Second, consider upgrading to paid tiers if financially feasible; Plus ($20/month), Pro ($200/month), Business, Enterprise, and Education subscriptions remain ad-free. Third, explore alternative AI assistants like Claude, Gemini, or other chatbots with different business models to diversify dependence. Fourth, manage ChatGPT’s ad settings by disabling personalization, viewing your ad history, and clearing it regularly. Finally, use temporary chats for sensitive conversations, as OpenAI doesn’t show ads in temporary chat sessions. Stay informed about policy changes and consider regulatory advocacy for stronger user protections.
