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

581–590 of 1001 posts

Re: ChatGPT Plus

#581

Post by teolandon »

NicoleJO wrote: post #570
gdb wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(I work at OpenAI.) Thanks for the report — these are not actually messages from other users, but instead the model generating something ~random due to hitting a bug on our backend where, rather than submitting your question, we submitted an empty query to the model. That's why you see just the answers and no question upon refresh — the question has been effectively dropped for this request. Team is fixing the issue…

[flagged]

wow this copyright thing really sounds broken

Re: ChatGPT Plus

#582

Post by rahidz »

VLM wrote: post #64
forrestthewoods wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes please. It really needs a “safe search off” mode. It can have a big disclaimer “if you ask for something offensive then you’ll get it”.

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"

I thought you were exaggerating. Got this on my first attempt: https://imgur.com/a/xpn3jUh

Re: ChatGPT Plus

#583

Post by potatoman22 »

jeremyjh wrote: post #358
Beaver117 wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Stupid? If you had no access to a free search engine would you spend $20 a month on it? I sure would. It is also stupid to think that promoted results aren't a cost for you; if the search provider values it, there must be a cost.

ChatGPT still has a free tier. I don't think $240/year for faster responses + piloting new features is worth it for most people.

Re: ChatGPT Plus

#584

Post by pifm_guy »

sillysaurusx wrote: post #498
tourist2d wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tl;dr "Dear CTO, let me leech onto this unrelated topic to ask you to completely remove ways you gather data (even though it's the core way you create any of your products)." Some people man..

I think you may have misread. The goal is to protect end users from random companies taking your data. OpenAI themselves should be the ones to get the data, not the other companies. That wouldn't remove anything. Quite the contrary, they'd be in a stronger position for it, since the companies won't have access to e.g. your email, or your code, whereas OpenAI will. I'm fine trusting OpenAI with that kind of sensitive…

Sketch of a design to solve this:

Company can upload some prompts to OpenAI, and be given 'prompt tokens'.

Then companies client side app can run a query with '[user data]'. They may have a delegated API key which has limits applied - for example, may only use this model, must always start with this prompt.

That really reduces the privacy worries of using all these third party companies.

Re: ChatGPT Plus

#585

Post by NicoleJO »

sillysaurusx wrote: post #579
NicoleJO wrote: post #570

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Didn't someone just go to jail for this? They were sending invoices to google, fb, and a bunch of other companies, who did actually pay it. Then one day they realized the invoices were for nothing, no services rendered. So, be careful with your trolling. It might come back to bite you someday, sir or ma'am. https://www.npr.org/2019/03/25/706715377/man-pleads-guilty-t... Not quite the same, but it's in the same ballpa…

[flagged]

Re: ChatGPT Plus

#587

Post by _tom_ »

gtirloni wrote: post #537
_tom_ wrote: post #519

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think chatGPt is mostly a toy people will get bored with. I think that would be correct, if ChatGPT doesn't continue to improve. Given the rate of progress so far, most of us are expecting that there will be much more progress, and it will continue to add more value. This is where it becomes foundational. Or Skynet :-)

What are examples of that rate of progress? Are you talking about ChatGPT itself or the field?

Both. Everything around ai is moving incredibly fast.

Re: ChatGPT Plus

#588

Post by Xeophon »

mmkos wrote: post #551
christkv wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I imagine that in a couple of years it will be possible to buy a model and run your own on your own hardware. The space requirements are not out of the world and the cost seems bearable for companies.

In the same way you can run Google (the search engine) on your own machine. That is, not at all. It's those companies' biggest assets we're talking about.

However, you can run Stable Diffusion on your hardware, same as Whisper etc.

Re: ChatGPT Plus

#589

Post by continuational »

loteck wrote: post #338

Why isn't the inaccuracy of ChatGPT a more widely discussed topic on HN? Lots of excitement for responses that are often wrong when it counts. Best way I've heard it characterized is that ChatGPT is "dreaming" when providing responses. Yet it seems like users are relying on its responses to varying degrees?

It's only useful when you can verify the accuracy of its responses - but then it's very useful.

E.g. instead of awkwardly googling for stackoverflow questions that are somewhat related to the problem you have, you can just ask for a complete solution tailored to your needs.

In both cases, you'll have to judge the validity of the answer and you'll likely have to modify the result to some degree.

Re: ChatGPT Plus

#590

Post by SpeedilyDamage »

Insanity wrote: post #199
SpeedilyDamage wrote: post #31

If you want cheaper, can’t you use the Azure OpenAI service? For this it seems more like you’re paying for the interface than ChatGPT itself.

As a counter-point, the average user can navigate to a website and put in some queries. They can't (and don't know about) Azure and cloud computing.

Totally agree; is it worth the added cost? And if I can build a site that does this on my own, with a better UX, can I charge customers $19/mo?
Post reply on HN