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

461–470 of 1001 posts

Re: ChatGPT Plus

#461

Post by yuck39 »

hlfshell wrote: post #158
extr wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WYDM exactly by iOS shortcut? I use a Mac but only an android phone. Do you mean for mobile usage? > i have found it to be terrible when it comes to something simple, like constructing a regex. Oh yeah, agreed. It's not good for super specific stuff like that. But more like, I write a weird loop and ask if there is a more idiomatic way to do the above. Or I just describe what I want to do and say, "list three options…

iOS shortcuts is basically a built in IFTTT service but with deep integration into apple products. For an example of chapt gpt3 integrating w/ it, check out this cool build. https://matemarschalko.medium.com/chatgpt-in-an-ios-shortcut...

Set this up on my phone without any of the home automation stuff just to have an alternative to Siri. Its pretty good, I wish I could have a back and forth conversation with it but I don't think I can do that inside of a Siri shortcut.

Re: ChatGPT Plus

#462

Post by zaptrem »

I think a personal subscription model where ChatGPT Plus subscribers are given personal API access for use with third-party open source apps (e.g., Chrome extensions, Siri Shortcuts, VSCode extensions) would be extremely valuable and much more lucrative than selling to specific companies.

OpenAI has the opportunity to become the next fundamental utility provider for society. In the same way everybody has a data plan to make their apps work, in the future everybody could have an OpenAI subscription to enable advanced capabilities across their apps. A system where individual companies pay for access makes many of the most incredible use-cases economically infeasible.

Future children will grow up oblivious to their AI subscription in the same way current children are oblivious to the ramifications of their internet subscriptions.

We are going through the AOL stage again.

Re: ChatGPT Plus

#463

Post by throwaway4aday »

yamtaddle wrote: post #352
sterlind wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's going to hit so unevenly. My partner works with children at a homeless shelter, I'm an algorithm designer. I'm certain my job will be obsolete before my partner's is. It's going to automate away nearly all pure desk jobs. Starting with data entry, like you've seen, but it'll come for junior SDEs and data scientists too. Customer service, then social media/PR, then marketing, as it culls the white collar. Graphic…

Fewer people juggling more very-different responsibilities, which is a continuation of how office work's already been going. Personal computer? Now everyone does typing/data-entry/data-organization/data-retrieval, not just secretaries—most of whom we've fired. Also, now "programmer" and "analyst" are one job instead of two. We fired most of the programmers, all you analysts are "software developers" now. Hope you lik…

Don't worry, we'll eventually get down to only requiring 1 employee to run a successful business.

Re: ChatGPT Plus

#464

Post by humanistbot »

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…

I think you have a big misunderstanding about how these models work. These models are just reproducing what it has seen before, and it has no information about the actual person unless they are famous enough to have lots of things written about them in the training data. It has no reasoning or ability to critically synthesize information, it just throws words around in a bag until it looks close enough to something it has seen before.

Even if you feed in new data about the person, it has no reasoning. For example, ask it to count the number of letters in a string of letters and numbers. It will fail more often than it succeeds. So you can ask it to classify people based on toxicity or fraud risk, and it will write you a report in the right genre that says yes or no with the appropriate level of detail. But it won't be connected to reality or represent actual risk.

Re: ChatGPT Plus

#465

Post by throwaway4aday »

elashri wrote: post #274
sterlind wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's going to hit so unevenly. My partner works with children at a homeless shelter, I'm an algorithm designer. I'm certain my job will be obsolete before my partner's is. It's going to automate away nearly all pure desk jobs. Starting with data entry, like you've seen, but it'll come for junior SDEs and data scientists too. Customer service, then social media/PR, then marketing, as it culls the white collar. Graphic…

If it replaces juniors, then it hopefully can replace seniors because you wouldn't find any of them after some time.

The Junior SE will become the Junior PE. In reality, you still need to plan the architecture, know the concepts, understand the domain, shape the data, and most importantly review and test the generated code.

Re: ChatGPT Plus

#466

Post by kolinko »

johtso wrote: post #401
m463 wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 provi…

Sure, but with some things, the increase in productivity pays off the price easily - you end up earning more, or working way less.

$20/mo for a subscription of NYT, or Netflix is not one of those things. But ChatGPT in many cases can save whole days of work over each month, so - especially when you're a freelancer, it will pay itself off.

Re: ChatGPT Plus

#467

Post by throwaway4aday »

qorrect wrote: post #210
kokanee wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$20 is the very first price tier introduced at the very outset of what could be one of the most powerful companies of our generation. Google.com adding a single yellow box with an advertisement seemed reasonable, too. Anyone else having serious concerns about the direction this is going? At my wife's company they have already largely replaced an hourly data classification job with ChatGPT. This announcement is the fi…

I'm extremely worried. This tech is going to replace a lot of jobs in the next 10-20, including ours ( software ). And if not replace, it's going to cut the available positions drastically . We already have a great divide between those with money and those without and this is a nuclear bomb about to go off. Without any sort of UBI or social safety nets, this is going to be a true disaster.

Imagine your average client/C suite manager. Now imagine them copy pasting code returned from their half-baked description of the problem domain onto a production server.

Re: ChatGPT Plus

#468

Post by tenpies »

rnd0 wrote: post #456

>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"?

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

On the bright side, it means ChatGPT will never replace humans. Catering to a Democrat fantasy that is ever more diverging from reality, means ChatGPT becomes less like asking a library, and more like asking /r/politics.

Re: ChatGPT Plus

#469

Post by luma »

citilife wrote: post #201
kokanee wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$20 is the very first price tier introduced at the very outset of what could be one of the most powerful companies of our generation. Google.com adding a single yellow box with an advertisement seemed reasonable, too. Anyone else having serious concerns about the direction this is going? At my wife's company they have already largely replaced an hourly data classification job with ChatGPT. This announcement is the fi…

I'm less concerned about how many jobs are going to be replaced and more about how they'll be replaced. The AI is not decerning and right in the announcement, OpenAI states it's intention on "correcting assumptions": > challenge incorrect assumptions I imagine some of these assumptions will be bias towards particularly ideologies / things people desire. - https://twitter.com/Basedeyeballs/status/1613269931617050625 -…

I feel like the non-stop handwringing about ChatGPT centers around people's expectations for machines vs people. We expect machines to have consitent, predictable output. We expect humans to inconsistent and messy.

Now we have a machine that is inconsistent and messy (and helpful!) and nobody seems to know what to think. Maybe we stop applying machine notions to this sort of machine? Stop expecting certain, consistant output. Understand that it's sometimes messy. We have these expectations already when working with humans.

Humans have biases, if you ask a human a loaded question you can expect a loaded response. If you train a LMM on a dataset that contains those human biases, why should you expect the result to be anything other than similarly biased?

Post reply on HN