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

OpenAI's Foundry leaked pricing says a lot

cognitiverevolution.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 214 posts

Re: OpenAI's Foundry leaked pricing says a lot

#51

Post by astrange »

eindiran wrote: post #16
Nifty3929 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$78k is very small, even for bootstrapped companies. Only the very smallest shops would be inhibited by that. And I admit, that's a lot of them! I get it. It sucks to be a solo developer who wants to get involved and doesn't want to spend a bunch of cash. But still, for even small players $250k annually just isn't that much. What we might hope for are trimmed down, subsidized options for small shops who want to get s…

> "open" doesn't mean free Yeah but none of the other definitions of "open" apply to OpenAI either.

It means they release research papers. People haven't had trouble reproducing their work.

(Of course, GPT's model architecture was invented at Google anyway.)

Re: OpenAI's Foundry leaked pricing says a lot

#52

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

Tepix wrote: post #11
seydor wrote: post #2

It looks like OpenAI's first mover advantage won't last long, considering the speed at which these models are improving and compacting themselves. Seems like this new 'Moore's law' will be even more steep, at least in the beginning . So steep, that we can hope to be running these in our desktops instead of on someone else's computer.

I don't think Moore's law is the most important factor, instead algorithmic improvements will enable to have smaller models that are as capable as these humongeous models. Llama 65b is hopefully just the beginning of this trend. It outperforms OPT-175b.

'Moore's Law' was in quotes for a reason.

Re: OpenAI's Foundry leaked pricing says a lot

#53

Post by Mistletoe »

ilaksh wrote: post #7

The Foundry pricing, $78,000 for a few months minimum, is absolutely the opposite of Open. It could completely kill my small startup if the API goes from less than a penny per request to requiring a huge up-front investment. It means that anyone bootstrapping is now locked out.

This answers the question I’ve had. How do they make money? It was naive to think we could have all this innovation for a penny. Someone has to pay those bills.

How does Bing plan to monetize searches that go through their even more advanced ChatGPT? Humans will be repulsed by ads in the middle of their answer from a sentient feeling AI. Numbers I’ve seen is that ChatGPT searches will cost 10x a Google search. How do they make it back?

Re: OpenAI's Foundry leaked pricing says a lot

#54

Post by vorpalhex »

mike_hearn wrote: post #5
Imnimo wrote: post #3

>Handle customer interactions – natural language Q&A, appointment setting, account management, and even tech support, available 24/7, pick up right where you left off, and switch from text to voice as needed. Customer service and experience will improve dramatically. For example, Microsoft will let companies create their own custom versions of ChatGPT — read here. If I can prompt-hack your ChatGPT customer service ag…

That would presumably be treated the same as a human CSA doing the same thing.

Typically an agent of the company can act within their realm of authority.

A human CSA can give you a discount, and that is usually binding. They can't declare X corp is going to mail a box of donuts to you every day for the rest of your life and have it be.

So my expectation would be (in the absence of real world cases currently) that if you negotiate the AI into giving you a 10% discount on your bill.. it would be binding typically.

Now if there's prompt hacking involved or obvious attempts to trick the AI, that would not be binding.

Re: OpenAI's Foundry leaked pricing says a lot

#55

Post by nl »

astrange wrote: post #51
eindiran wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "open" doesn't mean free Yeah but none of the other definitions of "open" apply to OpenAI either.

It means they release research papers. People haven't had trouble reproducing their work. (Of course, GPT's model architecture was invented at Google anyway.)

> GPT's model architecture was invented at Google anyway

No it wasn't. Transformers were invented at Google, but "architecture" when talking about neural networks means how they are arranged (and to some extent the training objective function) rather than the building blocks used.

Re: OpenAI's Foundry leaked pricing says a lot

#56

Post by MichaelZuo »

dragonwriter wrote: post #22

> This really should not be a surprise, because even the standard-issue ChatGPT can pass the Bar Exam No, it can’t. The two things that together have sometimes gotten misrepresented that way in “game of telephone” presentations are: (1) that when tested on the multiple choice component of the multistate bar exam (not the whole bar exam), it got passing grades in two subjects (evidence and torts), not the whole multip…

Well the first paper's authors does say: "While our ability to interpret these results is limited by nascent scientific understanding of LLMs and the proprietary nature of GPT, we believe that these results strongly suggest that an LLM will pass the MBE component of the Bar Exam in the near future."

Re: OpenAI's Foundry leaked pricing says a lot

#57

Post by nl »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #17

So much for "Open" AI. Open-source algorithm? No. Open access for free, or reasonable prices? No. Open emails and conversations of directors (accountability)? No. Open conversations of issues and ethics? No.

> Open-source algorithm? No.

The publish their algorithms just fine and no one has had issues replicating their work.

Re: OpenAI's Foundry leaked pricing says a lot

#58

Post by chatmasta »

dragonwriter wrote: post #22

> This really should not be a surprise, because even the standard-issue ChatGPT can pass the Bar Exam No, it can’t. The two things that together have sometimes gotten misrepresented that way in “game of telephone” presentations are: (1) that when tested on the multiple choice component of the multistate bar exam (not the whole bar exam), it got passing grades in two subjects (evidence and torts), not the whole multip…

Two articles by Gary Kasparov spring to mind, the first [0] written in 1996 after his victory over Deep Blue:

> If the computer makes the same move that I would make for completely different reasons, has it made an "intelligent" move? Is the intelligence of an action dependent on who (or what) takes it?

> This is a philosophical question I did not have time to answer.

...and the second written in 1997 after his loss to Deep Blue, entitled "IBM Owes Mankind a Rematch" [1]:

> I think this moment could mark a revolution in computer science that could earn IBM and the Deep Blue team a Nobel Prize.

[0] https://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,984...

[1] https://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,986...

Re: OpenAI's Foundry leaked pricing says a lot

#59

Post by celestialcheese »

holoduke wrote: post #49
buildbot wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody is doing this, unless you have a source you would like to link?

We use it for automated translations of sports commentaries. The results are mind blowing. Far ahead of Google translate.

How does it compare to DeepL? And per-word human translation services like you'd source through Crowdin?

Re: OpenAI's Foundry leaked pricing says a lot

#60

Post by smeagull »

chatmasta wrote: post #58
dragonwriter wrote: post #22

> This really should not be a surprise, because even the standard-issue ChatGPT can pass the Bar Exam No, it can’t. The two things that together have sometimes gotten misrepresented that way in “game of telephone” presentations are: (1) that when tested on the multiple choice component of the multistate bar exam (not the whole bar exam), it got passing grades in two subjects (evidence and torts), not the whole multip…

Two articles by Gary Kasparov spring to mind, the first [0] written in 1996 after his victory over Deep Blue: > If the computer makes the same move that I would make for completely different reasons, has it made an "intelligent" move? Is the intelligence of an action dependent on who (or what) takes it? > This is a philosophical question I did not have time to answer. ...and the second written in 1997 after his loss…

I think this is a general principle that has been accessible since AI began. Having poor and extremely basic rules of thumb can be unreasonably effective. They might fall down in complicated circumstances, but having a "driving AI" that is just cruise control, solves so many cases of that problem.

Degenerate solutions to problems can often solve many cases.

Post reply on HN