Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

ChatGPT Plus

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 1001 posts

Re: ChatGPT Plus

#401

Post by johtso »

m463 wrote: post #308
ezekg wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You use it consistently during the workday and it's still not worth $20/mo?

This is one of those puzzling things to me. You own your life - why not spend your own money for the things that make you and your life better? Who cares? I worked at a job where I had a small, crappy monitor. I made decent cash. I just bought a large decent monitor and brought it into work. I ended up using it for many years. My life was significantly better. I've done that at several jobs since then, and NEVER regr…

I think there's also an argument to be made that $20 per month is a bigger deal than some people realise. The issue isn't just _that one_ specific subscription you're paying for. The issue is how they all accumulate over time.. and eventually you find that your metaphorical bucket of money has turned into a leaky sieve. Not to mention all the services you forget to unsubscribe from even though they've ceased to provide enough value to you to make them worth while.

A one-off purchase is very different from making a hole in the bucket.

Obviously this all depends on how financially comfortable you are. But still.. time is money. Money you're spending today is time you're committing to work to earn back tomorrow.

Re: ChatGPT Plus

#402

Post by layer8 »

roughly wrote: post #375

Wait, wasn't the entire argument around "we scraped everything and fuck your copyrights" that it was non-commercial?

Did OpenAI ever make a statement about that?

In any case, OpenAI is a for-profit company owned and controlled by a non-profit. Make of that what you will.

Re: ChatGPT Plus

#403

Post by tppiotrowski »

m463 wrote: post #308
ezekg wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You use it consistently during the workday and it's still not worth $20/mo?

This is one of those puzzling things to me. You own your life - why not spend your own money for the things that make you and your life better? Who cares? I worked at a job where I had a small, crappy monitor. I made decent cash. I just bought a large decent monitor and brought it into work. I ended up using it for many years. My life was significantly better. I've done that at several jobs since then, and NEVER regr…

You own that monitor. Would you pay $20/month to rent that monitor with the potential for price increases and ads popping up on it occasionally?

There's something to "owning" a thing. You can resell it and rent it out, etc. It's an asset. SaaS is not an asset. It's a service.

Re: ChatGPT Plus

#404

Post by wongarsu »

motoxpro wrote: post #102
0xDEF wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The GPT-3.5 model needs more guidance and tweaking with parameters than ChatGPT. They are actively monitoring the use of their APIs. On twitter there are people who claim they have been banned by OpenAI for generating racist texts with the raw API/playground.

Great news. The models are there, if you want to train your own racist-bot-001 people are more than welcome to.

GPT-J and GPT-neoX had significant effort poured into them, and are still vastly inferior to full davinci GPT-3, or to ChatGPT.

Re: ChatGPT Plus

#405

Post by telotortium »

Can we support saving the random seed with ChatGPT Plus so that sessions are reproducible? (I know you'd have to save the model as well, but presumably you could wait a bit if the old model had to be paged into a hot server.)

Re: ChatGPT Plus

#406

Post by sterlind »

kerpotgh wrote: post #391
sterlind wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why can't crowdfunding work for this stuff? I'd gladly chip in like, $1K or something, to fund the training of a ChatGPT-like LLM, on the condition that it's publicly released with no fetters.

Seems like you would have to declare an entity to receive funds which is a no-no if you’re setting out to do something illegal.

It's not illegal yet to train an LLM. Best to get started before they lock it down and entrench the monopolies.

Re: ChatGPT Plus

#407

Post by speedgoose »

Beaver117 wrote: post #330
jeremyjh wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you are doing something like 400 queries a month and the aggregate value of all those responses is less than $20 to you? I've got to ask, why bother querying it at all?

Thats stupid, I use search engines much much more than 400 times a month and they are free.

You aren’t the customer on classic search engines.

If you don’t use an adblocker with these many searches, you are probably worth more than $20 a month of advertising revenues.

Re: ChatGPT Plus

#408

Post by adenozine »

I would feel hesitant about this, though I don't really have a serious interest in the tool beyond silly experiments I do on the bot.

I've experienced probably a dozen times in the past 30 days where I was trying to chat with the thing during "peak time" and ended up basically just fucking off to something else.

The sour taste that this has brought on drastically reduces my desire to give this thing my money. $29bn valuation, and you can't just serve me the thing on a webpage reliably? And now you want a subscription??

I don't get it. Especially when half the shit I see people using it for could be done correctly by using wolframalpha in the first place.

To get even more tangential: I think we are opening a wildly dangerous can of worms by interfacing with an agent whose responses aren't verified by default. Correctness is extremely important, and ChatGPT doesn't seem to be capable of being locked into any kind of "verified correct answers only" mode. If the average person I speak with in DC is anything to go by, than the people even dumber than that are NOT going to be capable of filtering fact from fiction when using this service, despite how well-known it is to "hallucinate" and literally just talk out of its own ass.

But yeah. Get your javascript snippets faster.... /shrug

Re: ChatGPT Plus

#409

Post by [deleted] »

qwertox wrote: post #145

~~~ To the ChatGPT Team ~~~ I'm currently receiving answers FROM OTHER USERS with this new version from 30 Jan, completely unrelated to my question: Q: Why is it easier for me to do endurance training on an empty stomach? A1: There are several things you can do to reduce the chance of getting a yeast infection: regenerate response: A2: There are many benefits to using cloud storage solutions such as Google Drive, Dro…

[deleted]

Re: ChatGPT Plus

#410

Post by codetrotter »

shagie wrote: post #312
codetrotter wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s definitely not doing what the prompt asked for. https://regex101.com/r/ZNQa9X/1 The generated regex is the same as (\bdog\b)|(\bcat\b) https://regex101.com/r/vTtEU4/1 I’m currently trying to figure out how to match a word starting with dog without using \bdog.* because .* would proceed to eat the rest of the line. So I was thinking I could say \bdog[^\b]* But that doesn’t work, it also ends up eating the rest of…

Use \S which is the opposite set of \s which avoids eating word boundaries too. \b(dog\S*)|(\S*cat)\b You could also use a \B instead of a \S though there are different meanings there.

It almost does the trick

https://regex101.com/r/sbpy8s/1

But this matches for example

    dog.cat
as one single word.

But I would like that it matches separately

    dog
and

    cat
in this case.

Likewise, I’d want for example

    dogapple-bananacat
to be matched as two separate words

    dogapple
and

    bananacat
After a bit more reading online I thought that maybe the following regex would do what I want:

    \b(dog\p{L}*)|(\p{L}*cat)\b
https://regex101.com/r/1NT5Ie/1

But that does not match

    dog42
as a word.

What I want is a way to include everything after dog that is not \b

And likewise everything preceding cat that is not \b

Edit: I think I’ve found it after reading https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4541573/what-are-non-wor...

    (\bdog\w*)|(\w*cat\b)
Seems to behave exactly like I want.

https://regex101.com/r/f3uJUE/1

Post reply on HN