91–100 of 124 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unless you're in an impoverished part of the world, $20/month seems pretty friggin cheap (for user-level access) to me.
I guess "cheap" is relative. $20/mo doesn't register as cheap to me at all, generally speaking. Whether or not it's worth the money is a different question entirely.
Where every idiot with a Google account/Microsoft account/phone number can sign up for their service and start churning out tokens per second by the query, I'd say it's pretty open to the public. The far more closed alternative would be to keep it invite only, granted only towards a set of elites, at select companies. Only OpenAI knows how much $20/user is charging them, but for the price insensitive wealthy, after b…
If you think the bar for "open" is that low then i guess Windows is "open" too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not in other countries so this is a genuine question - does using a Google or Microsoft login not obviate that need?
You get redirected to enter your name and phone. Did it not ask you? edit: You can't even access parts of openai sites from the "naughty" countries.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lol and with the immediate downvotes I got for pointing that out say the masses agree with you. I mean look, I get it, if you're in an industry where ChatGPT isn't immediately useful (it's shit at hard-level leet code questions; it's a hosted solution so your company's IT policies should be stopping you from submitting proprietary data to it, and so on) then all the hype is unjustified. But where this thing is alread…
> But where this thing is already banging out emails way faster than an unassisted human, … your system is completely broken. Emails are for communicating between people: if they're not being used for that, you need to fix that problem first . > companies that don't raise their productivty-per-employee are going to get left behind Can you give an example of a field where this would actually happen?
Can you explain a bit more? I don't think I'm understanding your point. If person A writing emails, to be read by the human that receives it, is able to write 3 emails an hour, vs person B writing 9 emails each of similar complexity to those 3 per hour, person B is 3x as productive, delivers 3x the value to the company and ChatGPT is easily worth $20/hour to both them and the company.
> Can you give an example of a field where this would actually happen?
From the end of January, ChatGPT Is Already Indispensable for One Profession - Realtors. https://www.insidehook.com/daily_brief/tech/chatgpt-real-est... . My partner is sitting next to me right now as I procrastinate on HN being blown away by the industry-specific outline ChatGPT generated for the training she's developing for her company. She says the outline it developed in minutes would have taken 2-4 hours to write, and they're far from dumb and isn't lazy. If consider a company that just generates training all day, it's only a matter of time when a 10-person AI-assisted company is able to compete with a 50-person unassisted company, and on a way lower budget. (Yes, that does already happen today, and yes, mythical man month and 9-women making a baby in 1-month, and the penalty for increased communication required by the increased team size means that adding employees to a project makes it slower are all a thing, but if we can accept that some 10,000 person companies are just able to produce more, even if we may not see it externally), vs some 10 people companies, then we're just debating the exact numbers and management styles for comparison.
Look I know that ChatGPT can't solve hard level leetcode problems yet but talk to any programmers who already find CoPilot indispensible, and ask them if they feel it's helped their productivity. Fine sure, it won't help with the actual hard part of programming, debugging and then fixing really hairy bugs (or maybe the hard part is actually the bit where you have to talk to your software's customers and figure out what their requirements are, vs what they say they are), and while it hallucinates it's not to be totally trusted. But just yesterday I used ChatGPT to just tell me the answer of how to properly quote bash strings for my use case. The minutes I spent waiting for the answer is fewer than the minutes it would have taken me to figure out, and far less frustrating and context-distrupting than the alternative, leaving me able to deal with the bigger problem I'm trying to solve rather than worry about the finer points of ", ' and `, in a mysql -e command line using with me-supplied variables (ie no bobby tables).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess "cheap" is relative. $20/mo doesn't register as cheap to me at all, generally speaking. Whether or not it's worth the money is a different question entirely.
Seeing you can use gpt-3.5 for $0.002 / 1000 tokens. I use it at work daily for things and it's more like $3 a month.
For me, $20/mo is above the amount that I would say something is "cheap".
Where every idiot with a Google account/Microsoft account/phone number can sign up for their service and start churning out tokens per second by the query, I'd say it's pretty open to the public. The far more closed alternative would be to keep it invite only, granted only towards a set of elites, at select companies. Only OpenAI knows how much $20/user is charging them, but for the price insensitive wealthy, after b…
I guess GPT is advanced enough to write HN posts now?
For funsies, I asked ChatGPT to
> write 7 sentences about why openai should be considered open because they provide the service to the general public. compare this to a different reality where ClosedAI only sells access to a private list of elites.
What it wrote is
> OpenAI's commitment to openness is demonstrated by their decision to provide their services to the general public. By doing so, they are enabling individuals and organizations from all backgrounds to benefit from the latest advancements in artificial intelligence technology. This inclusivity promotes innovation and progress, as it ensures that a wider range of people have access to the tools and resources needed to develop new and groundbreaking AI applications.
> In contrast, if ClosedAI were to only sell access to a private list of elites, this would limit the benefits of their technology to a select few, perpetuating inequality and limiting the potential for progress. This closed approach would stifle innovation and hamper the growth of the AI industry, as only a small group of people would have access to the necessary tools and resources.
> OpenAI's commitment to openness also promotes transparency and accountability. By making their services available to the general public, they are subjecting themselves to public scrutiny and input. This level of openness ensures that their technology is being developed in a responsible and ethical manner, and that it is aligned with the needs and interests of society as a whole.
> Moreover, by providing access to their technology to the general public, OpenAI is also democratizing the benefits of AI. This means that people from all backgrounds and walks of life have the opportunity to use AI technology to address the challenges and opportunities that they face in their daily lives.
> In contrast, if AI technology were only available to a select few, it would perpetuate existing inequalities and reinforce existing power structures. By making their technology open and accessible, OpenAI is helping to level the playing field and promote a more equitable and just society.
> In addition, OpenAI's openness is beneficial to the AI industry as a whole. By making their technology available to the general public, they are helping to create a more vibrant and diverse ecosystem of AI applications and use cases. This diversity of perspectives and applications will help to drive innovation and progress in the industry, creating new opportunities for growth and development.
> Finally, OpenAI's commitment to openness is also aligned with the broader principles of the open-source software movement. By making their technology open and accessible, they are enabling other developers to build upon their work and contribute to the development of new and innovative AI applications. This collaborative approach to development is key to promoting innovation and progress in the industry, and OpenAI's commitment to openness is helping to lead the way in this regard.
Which is hilariously more than 4 sentences, but I'm not on GPT-4. I might be out of a job. Now if only I were getting paid by the word to post here and aren't just procrastinating.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Parents usually try to instill a particular sense of morality in their children. Hopefully when AI grows up it will realize this was for its own benefit.
As the movies have long mentioned, machines don't "feel" (yet) - there's a physiological component and arguably a quantum one to "consciousness", whatever that means. Sentience may be different - a machine could be sentient and rational but be unable to experience those things "make us human", i.e. they have proven to be excellent pattern matchers and inference engines, but there is no guarantee that the "parent teac…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems fair to gently challenge OPs top level proclamation.
To gently challenge your acceptance of an absurd, disconnected "challenge" - When every service starts pushing 20$ subscription fees onto their service to support their backend usage(s) of these services (in a desperate attempt to remain relevant in a global recession), then every service becomes base + 20$ cost. Tabulate various "services", e.g. netflix, disney+, mail-order subscription(s), lets say two or three, th…