ChatGPT recommended me some good hard drives for price per TB, and one particularly cheap one had direct checkout with Walmart, so I tried it, because why not? It let me get all the way to the payment step before it told me it was out of stock. Walmart's website told me it was out of stock when I decided to click on the link. This is probably part of why it doesn't convert.

This is from one of the links in the article

> Why this is happening. Two forces are slowing agentic commerce, according to Leigh McKenzie, director of online visibility at Semrush: infrastructure and trust. Real-time catalog normalization across tens of millions of SKUs is a decade-scale problem Google already solved with Merchant Center, and consumers still default to checkout flows they trust — Apple Pay, Google Wallet, and Amazon one-click.

It turns out when you step outside of “hard tech” problems like building GPT6 there are all of these details others have solved already. E-commerce has been optimized to the last decimal point for the last 30 years.

OpenAI is new to it, and if I had to guess, not that interested in getting good at it.

ChatGPT Checkout, a solution looking for a problem.

Why would anyone have an extra layer of friction too where things could go wrong, where handing over payment details in another chain.

Just let me buy my stuff in peace. Shopping is not the 'killer app' for GenAI.

(Good) E-commerce has been ruthlessly optimised to get shoppers to products they'll actually buy and then remove all distractions from buying.

A chat interface is just fundamentally incompatible with this. The agent makes it too easy to ask questions and comparison shop.

This partnership was doomed to fail.

Walmart does not, over 10 years after they were released, even accept the contactless payment systems in common use. Instead, they push their in-house version in part so they can capture the relevant customer data.

And we're meant to believe that Walmart planned to outsource the entire series of touchpoints represented by the discovery & checkout process? Yeah, okay.

This was never going to be more than an experiment for Walmart.

You can either have AI be honest or AI become a marketing tool. The two are fundamentally incompatible.

You won't get it to push your products when users ask what's the best XYZ - either because it'll be too honest to lie or because it'll be too expensive for you.

The idea that AI will suddenly solve e-commerce demonstrates a lack of understanding on everything that has happened in this space over the last 25 years.

There’s a lot of this going on in AI at the moment. New folks come in thinking they have a magic solution and then produce a total train wreck as it turns out domain expertise is still a thing.

Wow the sceptics really came out in force for this one.

I’m currently using Gemini to research components for a remote controlled plane. I have the frame of the plane and now need to buy correctly specced servo motors, an engine, battery, etc etc. It has saved me so much time and educated me tremendously on how the different components interact and the options available.

If I could just press “buy” from within Gemini and pay via Google Pay (or better still, Apple Pay) I’d do it in a heartbeat.

If ChatGPT can do this today, I need to try it.

Is their issue that ChatGPT served their customers more than it served them?

Checkout conversion is the wrong metric. Walmart's funnel has 20 years of A/B tests behind every button placement, so of course a brand-new chat interface loses there. The interesting question is whether chat wins at discovery, not checkout

Where everybody sees failure I see a trillion dollar business, a faceless ai shop that merges all shops around your location.

"I need mayo, ketchup, mustard and ground beef"

"Here is a list of products with prices ... proceed to pay $25 (yes/no)" Yes

"Your card has been charged. Delivery will knock on your door in 7 minutes"

I'll code that app in one month, what's there to lose?

How many people tried for the novalty with no intention of purchasing? It being a thousand times worse conversion wouldn't matter if they are additional sales???

Last year they couldn't draw fingers on hands properly, this year they can't convert at checkouts, I wonder what they'll be failing to do a year from now.

So they are comparing to the conversion rate of people who click on a link in the chat and go to Walmart's website to view the product? Wouldn't that be a really strong intent-to-buy signal?

The better comparison might be conversion rate for those who searched on Walmart.com vs those who searched within ChatGPT. Or maybe that is what they're comparing and I misunderstood?

I think they're thinking about this wrong.

I get all my groceries deliver to my doorstep via Walmart delivery pass. The thing I'm really missing is having AI curate meal planning to my family's preferences. I already feed ChatGPT my family' preferences (e.g. Kid A doesn't eat X Y Z and liked meal A B C, kid B likes ...) and ChatGPT is helping me build meal plans. With my preferences we can quickly nail down a meal plan for the week.

The slowest part of my meal planning is going through Walmart's slow site where each page load is 2-3 seconds and it takes several page load per item. Once it can translate my meal plan into a grocery checkout from Walmart I'm all set.

It's probably stuff like this along with investor pressure that will make AI companies slowly make their AIs more profit maximizing (and the long term reason ilya etc was so against even going down that path)

This tracks with the broader AI productivity paradox data. BCG's March study found AI oversight causes 33% increased decision fatigue in workers — but workers who used AI to reduce repetitive work reported lower burnout.

The variable isn't whether AI is present. It's whether AI makes decisions well. A checkout flow where the AI makes worse purchase decisions than a static website is the consumer-facing version of the same problem enterprises face with AI agents: capability without governance = worse outcomes, not better.

The shift to AI is currently a boon to consumer. Penny’s has obviously done this, as they have had a $119 Man U jersey ring up at $19 for a week now, with many of my mates having bought one. It’s unbelievable that anyone thinks gutting human oversight builds a better company.

This seems to be comparing apples to oranges. The intent of the users inside ChatGPT and on the website would be vastly different. Comparing them doesn't make much sense sans other variables (= better understanding the intent)

I’ve been running e-commerce systems for 30 years (tech, marketing, etc). This was going to fail from the start for one reason: intent.

Most people using AI chat are exploring ideas and solutions. They’re doodling, not shopping. Or in old timey parlance, they’re looky-loos or tire kickers at best.

Anyone who’s had to justify ad spend in e-commerce can tell you that some sources produce huge traffic with absolutely terrible conversion. Reddit and Pinterest pretty much blow for this reason, with limited exceptions. It’s also why TikTok and other influencer platforms really work.

Conversion requires a mental shift from discovery to demand.

Also, really hate summaries like this without the actual source so here are the main points from the actual source (WIRED https://archive.is/7DuEV):

1. Instant Checkout inside ChatGPT performed poorly, with conversion about one-third of Walmart’s normal site.

2. The experience failed largely because it forced single-item purchases instead of letting users build a cart.

3. Walmart is shifting to embedding its own assistant, Sparky, inside ChatGPT and keeping checkout on its own system.

4. ChatGPT is still valuable because it’s driving significantly more new customer traffic than search.

5. Purchases that did work were mostly practical, problem-solving items like supplements and tools.

6. Fully automated “agentic shopping” is still unlikely in the near term because people want control over purchases.

7. OpenAI is moving away from in-chat checkout and focusing on helping users research while merchants handle transactions.

In short, AI is useful for discovery, but traditional e-commerce flows still outperform it at closing sales.

The first comment is probably spot on. I'll add one thing:

Speed is your greatest feature. LLMs are slow. Loading 450mb of javascript to the client just to buy a bag of Doritos is slow.

Server side rendering owns here.

I don’t trust AI bots to access my wallet. Not sure I ever will.

I sort of trust them to make product recommendations, but at best I will only open a link they suggest and buy the product there.

That doesn't seem terribly surprising, a human can quickly look through a grid of shirts to find one they like. ChatGPT would be guessing what they might want and the human would probably get a bad experience there with some regularity.

Stores converted better than eCommerce for a long time and adoption was slow.

The next generation will shop in a different way, if it's better, and the change will be gradual as well.

Adoption takes time.

The experience is a lot like when you are talking with a friend, then they decide to ask siri or google a question using voice. The result is always imprecise. Meaning they either have to repeat their query, or end up typing it anyway.

If you want to buy a Walmart product, the easiest way is to go to Walmart. Why add an imprecise middle man in between?

Isn’t there already a much older rule that predicts this?

Your product has to be a 10x improvement over the incumbent to be competitive.

In AI speak it would be the “extra-bitter” lesson I guess?

You need to add 10x resources to beat a product that’s already solved with mature tech.

is 3x worse like a 300% decrease?

> Walmart will embed its own chatbot, Sparky, inside ChatGPT. Users will log into Walmart, sync carts across platforms, and complete purchases within Walmart’s system.

The enshittification is upon us.

Original AI was sourced from university level text books, stack, wiki. Average iq around 140.

The latest AI is trained on the average citizens social media output. Iq 90.

That’s why AI seemed smart. The bar will not be raised again. We’re cooked.

Because most people can't read. Wait for agents generating personalized websites/self checkout apps.

Not really many details...

Perhaps clickthrough is worse because there are fewer dark patterns involved and people are mostly just browsing and occasionally buying only what they need.

They didn't really seem to specify the "why" of it with any research. And weird that OAI wasn't supporting them to see wha the issue was.

I’m shocked, shocked that an SEO website would say ChatGPT bad.

What if they made instant checkout actually instant? You ask ChatGPT to setup a website and it instantly purchases web hosting and sets up the website there. You can't beat a 100% conversion rate by actually checking out instantly. If you didn't like that host you can ask it to find it alternative and ChatGPT would automatically attempt a refund and then purchase from someone else.

Look, another thing AI is empirically bad at. Can we dispense with cramming AI into every product and service and just use it where it's useful? It's very wasteful and an utterly obnoxious experience for users.

[dead]

[dead]

[dead]

[flagged]

[dead]

[dead]

[dead]

The catalog normalization problem is real and severely underestimated. I ran into this building on top of product data feeds -- even with a single retailer, inconsistency in titles, attributes, and categorization is staggering. LLMs are great at reasoning but they inherit all that messy upstream data, so agentic shopping will keep stumbling until the data layer gets cleaner.