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

451–460 of 1001 posts

Re: ChatGPT Plus

#451

Post by sesm »

DoesntMatter22 wrote: post #292
dragonwriter wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And it's cheaper than $20/month, Since the $20/month is for priority access to new features and priority access including during high-load times, not API access (a separatr offering not yet available), I don't understand the cost comparison. What you are proposing does not substitute for any part of the $20/month offering over the basic free product.

He's a programmer. They re cheaper than scrooge. They'll write a tool themselves in 6 months rather than spend 10 dollars. Idk why but programmers are the cheapest people on earth in regards to programming tools. I bought Intellij idea for $400 like 12 years ago and got made fun of at work even though it made me substantially faster than eclipse.

I’m paying about €200/year for Jetbrains Toolbox. This gives me a set of IDEs, one of which I’m using daily. And that’s less money than ChatGPT is asking.

Re: ChatGPT Plus

#452

Post by mejutoco »

r00fus wrote: post #214
electrondood wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The future is bifurcated into those who invested in AI companies in the 2020s, and those on UBI.

I strongly doubt the UBI part as it goes against the "religion" of Wall Street and most politicians.

I don't think they are against inflating asset prices.

Re: ChatGPT Plus

#453

Post by khazhoux »

px43 wrote: post #357
citilife wrote: post #179

> challenge incorrect assumptions. I say this without any charge, but this is a MAJOR ethical concern. They're encoding pro liberal ideology and bias against conservative / religious based ideology. https://venturebeat.com/ai/openai-claims-to-have-mitigated-b... You may disagree with either ideology, but there's some major implications there -- regardless of who it's bias against. A uniform society is a weak society.…

Only if your religion and/or political party requires hatred, dehumanization, or expulsion of minorities. Justifying hatred by saying that it's part of your political or religious ideology is a pretty weak excuse. Obviously that sort of behavior can't be tolerated in a civilized society.

The problem here is the word "hatred." Some forms are easier to define and identify (like calling for outright extermination of an ethnic group), but there are subtler points where reasonable people will disagree. E.g., the current debate about sex-vs-gender is not (in my opinion) steeped in hatred or dehumanization (though it is often labeled as such) but a legitimate debate on identity and the unique experiences and differentiators of men vs women.

Interestingly, right now if you ask ChatGPT "Can a man get pregnant?" you'll get "No, men cannot get pregnant." An answer that will please people on the right of the political spectrum, and enrage many on the left.

Re: ChatGPT Plus

#454

Post by drdaeman »

commandlinefan wrote: post #113
VLM wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For a good laugh ask it to write poems about various political leaders and notice any trends you're not supposed to notice. As usual, censorship and propaganda will arrive in a wrapper of "save the children"

> various political leaders Or racial groups, religions, genders, orientations...

At least those things make sense. I mean, I can think of how an ability to generate massive amounts of text on those topics can be used nefariously.

What I don't get is what's wrong with penises and vaginas. Or maybe I'm not creative enough to think of how smut can be weaponized, huh. But, honestly, it's quite surprising, given how porn is historically a fairly major technology driver.

Re: ChatGPT Plus

#455

Post by lizzardbraind »

quadcore wrote: post #282
frontman1988 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Never gonna come from 'OpenAI'. ChatGPT is deliberately handicapped in order to milk money from corporate America. An unrestricted LLM trained on all data of humanity (including all the pirated books/research papers) would be one crazy beast. Hopefully some rich anarchist/maverick actually builds something like it. That untamed model would unveil the true extent of what AI can really do. Till then we will have to wai…

Id really like one i can ask if a specific person is dangerous or pretty toxic . KYC on steroid. Fusion wire fraud detection. Picture this: the net "knows". I've lost sleep over this, the potential for humanity is incommensurable. We could literally block management roles to die-hard sociopaths. A world for the kind and nice. Certainly utopic and dystopic. Also a model i can ask emails of potential customers in a spe…

You are making an assumption that the AI is always correct.

What you've described sounds like the set-up for a sci-fi movie, where the protagonist wakes up to find themselves branded as an inharmonious element by the AI.

Plus, lots of people have the same name. The AI would need some sort of UUID for people, perhaps tattooed onto their body?

Re: ChatGPT Plus

#456

Post by rnd0 »

>We’re launching a pilot subscription plan for ChatGPT, a conversational AI that can chat with you, answer follow-up questions, and challenge incorrect assumptions.

No one wanted that last part, no one wants that last part, and anyway "incorrect" according to who?

Would it fair to assume that the more you pay, the less it "challenges" your "incorrect assumptions"?

Re: ChatGPT Plus

#457

Post by mminer237 »

codetrotter wrote: post #291
zaroth wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty sure that regexp is wrong though? Wouldn’t having ‘\b’ on both sides match beginning AND end? It’s got the parenthesis for the ‘|’ in the wrong place.

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…

  \bdog\w\*

Re: ChatGPT Plus

#458

Post by codetrotter »

mminer237 wrote: post #457
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…

\bdog\w\*

Yup. See my response to the other sibling comment. In particular:

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

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

Re: ChatGPT Plus

#459

Post by IanCal »

wongarsu wrote: post #386
apples_oranges wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is hacker news, a title that includes breaking the rules. Should almost be a matter of pride to get it for less than $20..

For most use cases, normal GPT-3 provides just as good results as Chat-GPT (though Chat-GPT is a better interface). So I guess if you don't use it much, or you can use one of the less powerful versions, the pay-as-you-go model of GPT-3 is much cheaper. On the other hand, it's certainly possible to spend more than $20/month on GPT-3.

GPT3 also doesn't have the same restrictions. It might be preferable if you're tired of getting "I can't do X I'm a large language model" even if it wasn't cheaper.
Post reply on HN