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

GPT4 is up to 6 times more expensive than GPT3.5

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 136 posts

Re: GPT4 is up to 6 times more expensive than GPT3.5

#71

Post by nico »

Der_Einzige wrote: post #60
int_is_compress wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are already some cool projects that help LLM go beyond the context window limitation and work with even larger codebases like https://github.com/jerryjliu/llama_index and https://github.com/hwchase17/langchain .

The fundamental techniques that they use are highly lossey and are far inferior to ultra-long context length models where you can do it all in one prompt. Hate to break it to you and all the others.

Where can someone find and try ultra-long context length models?

Any links?

Re: GPT4 is up to 6 times more expensive than GPT3.5

#72

Post by ThrowawayTestr »

simonw wrote: post #14
Mizza wrote: post #13

Does anybody have their hands on it? Is it actually 6 times better at performing tasks, or are we paying more for improved corporate-friendly bumper bowling?

Not the API, but if you pay for ChatGPT Plus you can try it out there. It's very, very impressive so far - I've tried a bunch of things I've previously run against GPT-3 and got noticeably better results - maybe not a 2x or 6x multiple in "quality" (depending on how you measure that) but still very clearly improved. Posted a few examples here: https://fedi.simonwillison.net/@simon/110022949941148725

Those coffee puns are surprisingly good.

Re: GPT4 is up to 6 times more expensive than GPT3.5

#73

Post by IshKebab »

rvnx wrote: post #67
behnamoh wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The title compares GPT3.5 (not ChatGPT) with GPT4. Although the question is: If ChatGPT can do almost anything GPT3.5 can do, then why is it priced almost 10x less? Is it because GPT3.5 is less "censored"?

Didn't the CEO say during the GPT-4 demos that humans were involved to do the captions during all the images tests (using Be My Eyes volunteers) and that's why it took some time to show the Discord examples ? If so, it could explain some costs indirectly.

Wait did they just use Be My Eyes volunteers as AI labellers without telling them? Or were they told? Pretty unethical if not!

Re: GPT4 is up to 6 times more expensive than GPT3.5

#75

Post by stavros »

avereveard wrote: post #70
stavros wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah but that's also 30x times worse. ChatGPT is much worse-performing than davinci-003.

yeah, I used to be able to create valid units for WarStuff with original chatgpt, but now all the unit it creates are full of hallucinated traits and special rules that aren't in the source.

If you try davinci-003, it will definitely be able to do it.

Re: GPT4 is up to 6 times more expensive than GPT3.5

#76

Post by wmf »

evilduck wrote: post #58
djbusby wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OpenTable isn't Open Source. Open, as a word, has more than one context.

OpenTable references restaurants tables and times that are still open to be reserved. What contextual definition of "open" does OpenAI have? A website open to subscribers?

A website open to subscribers?

You can scoff at this but Google's models weren't available at any price before today.

Re: GPT4 is up to 6 times more expensive than GPT3.5

#77

Post by icapybara »

evilduck wrote: post #58
djbusby wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OpenTable isn't Open Source. Open, as a word, has more than one context.

OpenTable references restaurants tables and times that are still open to be reserved. What contextual definition of "open" does OpenAI have? A website open to subscribers?

An open API you can build products off of. Consider the alternative. They could not let anyone use their models and just release AI products (their own search engine, their own version of Teams, their own self driving car software, their own photoshop competitor, etc).

Re: GPT4 is up to 6 times more expensive than GPT3.5

#78

Post by hombre_fatal »

Der_Einzige wrote: post #60
int_is_compress wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are already some cool projects that help LLM go beyond the context window limitation and work with even larger codebases like https://github.com/jerryjliu/llama_index and https://github.com/hwchase17/langchain .

The fundamental techniques that they use are highly lossey and are far inferior to ultra-long context length models where you can do it all in one prompt. Hate to break it to you and all the others.

> Hate to break it to you and all the others.

Jeez. Their comment is quite obviously a complementary one in response to the limitation rather than a corrective one about the limitation.

Re: GPT4 is up to 6 times more expensive than GPT3.5

#79

Post by stavros »

sebzim4500 wrote: post #63
stavros wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But also gpt-3.5-turbo is far worse than davinci-003.

By what metric? For most stuff 3.5 is better in my experience. Assuming you are trying to complete an actual task rather than have fun.

I've tried to make an assistant with ChatGPT, because it's cheaper, and it's abysmally worse than davinci-003 at following instructions and reasoning.

Re: GPT4 is up to 6 times more expensive than GPT3.5

#80

Post by artdigital »

sebzim4500 wrote: post #63
stavros wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But also gpt-3.5-turbo is far worse than davinci-003.

By what metric? For most stuff 3.5 is better in my experience. Assuming you are trying to complete an actual task rather than have fun.

3.5-turbo is already worse than 3.5-legacy, you can try this with chatgpt plus. Use the normal (turbo) model and then use the legacy model, you will almost certainly feel a difference in quality

Turbo prioritizes speed (probably due to cost?), the legacy model has far higher quality of output. You can confirm this on Reddit where none of the chatgpt plus userbase seems happy with turbo and the general recommendation is to switch it back to legacy.

I tried porting a mini project from davinci to the new turbo api and quickly reverted it, turbo output is a lot more all over the place and very hard to get into something useful. It’s a fun chatbot though and still great for simple tasks

You get what you pay for, and there’s a reason 3.5-turbo is so cheap

Post reply on HN