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

ChatGPT Enterprise

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 532 posts

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#121

Post by exizt88 »

crooked-v wrote: post #94
ojosilva wrote: post #91

Clicked on ChatGPT / Compare ChatGPT plans / Enterprise ... > Contact sales Oops. Scary. I'm missing the Teams plan: transparent pricing with a common admin console for our team. Yes, fast GPT-4, 32k context, templates, API credits... they're all very nice-to-haves, but just the common company console would be crucial for onboarding and scaling-up our team and needs without the big-bang "enter-pricey" stuff.

Any "Contact sales" stuff has just been an instant "no" at any company I've ever worked at, because that always means that the numbers are always too high to include in the budget unless it's a directive coming down directly from the top.

That’s where directives for enterprise contracts usually come from. I’m sure they won’t even talk to anyone not willing to pay $100k+ per year. Salesforce’s AI Cloud starts at $365k a year.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#123

Post by flangola7 »

brigadier132 wrote: post #27
datadrivenangel wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sell the same product under two brands at the same time? Optimal business strategy. Makes it look like there's more competition, and changes the decision from "do we use ChatGPT" to "Which GPT vendor do we use?"

Microsoft has a stake in OpenAI but they don't have a controlling interest in it. What they got instead was exclusive access to the models on Azure. So they benefit from OpenAIs success but they benefit more from their own success in the space and in a way they are competitors.

Exclusive access? Source?

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#124

Post by stale2002 »

happytiger wrote: post #105

Has there been some resolution to the copyright issues that I’m no aware of? In my conversations with execs that’s been a serious concern — basically that generated output from AI systems can’t be reliably protected. I refer to the concept that output could be deemed free of copyright because they are not created by a human author, or that derivative works can be potential liabilities because they resemble works that…

The copyright ruling that you are referencing is being significantly misunderstood.

The only think that the ruling said is basically that the most low effort version of AI does not have copyright protection.

IE, if you just go into midjourney and type in "super cool anime girl!" and thats it, the results are not protected.

But there is so much more you can do. For example, you can generate an image, and then change it. The resulting images would be protected due to you adding the human input to it.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#125

Post by jacquesm »

jmorgan wrote: post #95
vyrotek wrote: post #76

Any correlation between this and the sudden disappearance of this repo? https://github.com/microsoft/azurechatgpt Past discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37112741

Seemed like a great project. Hope to see it come back! There are some great open-source projects in this space – not quite the same – many are focused on local LLMs like Llama2 or Code Llama which was released last week: - https://github.com/jmorganca/ollama (download & run LLMs locally - I'm a maintainer) - https://github.com/simonw/llm (access LLMs from the cli - cloud and local) - https://github.com/oobabooga/text…

Ollama is very neat. Given how compressible the models are is there any work being done on using them in some kind of compressed format other than reducing the word size?

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#126

Post by jacquesm »

SantalBlush wrote: post #85
ftxbro wrote: post #2

> For all enterprise customers, it offers: > Customer prompts and company data are not used for training OpenAI models. > Unlimited access to advanced data analysis (formerly known as Code Interpreter) > 32k token context windows for 4x longer inputs, files, or follow-ups I'd thought all those had been available for non enterprise customers, but maybe I was wrong, or maybe something changed.

> Customer prompts and company data are not used for training OpenAI models. This is borderline extortion, and it's hilarious to witness as someone who doesn't have a dog in this fight.

As long as they provide free Enterprise access for all those whose data they already stole...

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#127

Post by wpietri »

zaat wrote: post #116
pavlov wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “I'm willing to pay more” How much more? That’s the question that “talk to us” enterprise pricing is trying to answer.

I'm sure that's the correct answer, and that their very best was invested in analyzing the max profit strategy (as they should). What I'm wondering if it means that the minimal price they can offer the service with at profit, is likely to be too steep for anyone like me, who interpret "talk to us" as the online equivalent of showing him the door. The other explanation I see is that there's not many in the camp of use…

> I'm wondering if it means that the minimal price they can offer the service with at profit, is likely to be too steep for anyone like me

I think the answer to that is "no". The problem is that they don't want to reveal the minimal price to their initial round of customers.

There are two basic ways you can think about pricing: cost-plus and value-minus. We programmers tend to like the former because it's clear, rational, and simple. But if you've got something of unknown value and want to maximize income, the latter can be much more appealing.

The "talk to sales" approach means they're going to enter into a process where they find the people who can get the most out of the service. They're going to try to figure out the total value added by the service. And they'll negotiate down from there. (Or possibly up; somebody once said the goal of Oracle was to take all your money for their server software, and then another $50k/year for support.)

Eventually, once they've figured out the value landscape, they'll probably come back for users like you, creating a commoditized product offering that's limited in ways that you don't care about but high-dollar customers can't live without. That will be closer to cost-plus. For example, note Github's pricing, which varies by more than 10x depending on what they think they can squeeze you for: https://github.com/pricing

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#129

Post by nacs »

jacquesm wrote: post #125
jmorgan wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seemed like a great project. Hope to see it come back! There are some great open-source projects in this space – not quite the same – many are focused on local LLMs like Llama2 or Code Llama which was released last week: - https://github.com/jmorganca/ollama (download & run LLMs locally - I'm a maintainer) - https://github.com/simonw/llm (access LLMs from the cli - cloud and local) - https://github.com/oobabooga/text…

Ollama is very neat. Given how compressible the models are is there any work being done on using them in some kind of compressed format other than reducing the word size?

Yes, AutoGPTQ supports this (8, 4, 3, and 2 bit quantization/"compression" of weights + inference).

GPTQ has also been merged into Transformers library recently ( https://huggingface.co/blog/gptq-integration ).

GGML quantization format used by llama.cpp also supports (8,6,5,4,3, and 2 bit quantization).

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#130

Post by kuchenbecker »

swores wrote: post #108
SantalBlush wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Customer prompts and company data are not used for training OpenAI models. This is borderline extortion, and it's hilarious to witness as someone who doesn't have a dog in this fight.

Not really, they want some users to give them conversation history for training purposes and offer cheaper access to people willing to provide that.

Exactly, there is an opportunity cost to NOT training on this data.
Post reply on HN