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

ChatGPT Pro

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 1001 posts

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#81

Post by nine_k »

freedomben wrote: post #30

The price feels outrageous, but I think the unsaid truth of this is that they think o1 is good enough to replace employees. For example, if it's really as good at coding as they say, I could see this being a point where some people decide that a team of 5 devs with o1 pro can do the work of 6 or 7 devs without o1 pro.

Suppose an employee costs a business, say, $10k/mo; it's 50 subscriptions. Can giving access to the AI to, say, 40 employees improve their performance enough to avoid the need of hiring another employee? This does not sound outlandish to me, at least in certain industries.

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#83

Post by tedsanders »

freedomben wrote: post #30

The price feels outrageous, but I think the unsaid truth of this is that they think o1 is good enough to replace employees. For example, if it's really as good at coding as they say, I could see this being a point where some people decide that a team of 5 devs with o1 pro can do the work of 6 or 7 devs without o1 pro.

No, o1 is definitely not good enough to replace employees.

The reason we're launching o1 pro is that we have a small slice of power users who want max usage and max intelligence, and this is just a way to supply that option without making them resort to annoying workarounds like buying 10 accounts and rotating through their rate limits. Really it's just an option for those who'd want it; definitely not trying to push a super expensive subscription onto anyone who wouldn't get value from it.

(I work at OpenAI, but I am not involved in o1 pro)

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#84

Post by griomnib »

I consistently get significantly better performance from Anthropic at a literal order of magnitude less cost.

I am incredibly doubtful that this new GPT is 10x Claude unless it is embracing some breakthrough, secret, architecture nobody has heard of.

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#85

Post by notahacker »

kilroy123 wrote: post #14

I do wonder what effect this will have on furthering the divide between the "rich West" and the rest of the world. If everyone in the West has powerful AI and Agents to automate everything. Simply because we can afford it, but the rest of the world doesn't have access to it. What will that mean for everyone left behind?

tbh a lot of the rest of the world already has the ability to get tasks they don't want to do done for <$200 per month in the form of low wage humans. Some of their middle classes might be scratching their heads wondering why we've delegating creativity and communication to allow more time to do laundry rather than delegating laundry to allow more time for creativity and communication...

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#86

Post by doctorpangloss »

jsheard wrote: post #2

Expect more of this as they scramble to course-correct from losing billions every year, to hitting their 2029 target for profitability. That money's gotta come from somewhere. > Price hikes for the premium ChatGPT have long been rumored. By 2029, OpenAI expects it’ll charge $44 per month for ChatGPT Plus, according to reporting by The New York Times. I suspect a big part of why Sora still isn't available is because t…

ChatGPT as a standalone service is profitable. But that’s not saying much.

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#87

Post by zebomon »

jpcom wrote: post #58

$20 a month is reasonable because a computer can do in an hour what a human can do in a month. Multiplying that by ten would suggest that the world is mostly made of Python and that the solution space for those programs has been "solved." GPT is still not good at writing Clojure and paying 10x more would not solve this problem for me.

As of last week, it was incapable of writing any useful Prolog as well.

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#88

Post by dennisy »

extr wrote: post #31
iagooar wrote: post #15

I am using more Claude.ai these days, but the limitations for paying accounts do apply to ChatGPT as well. I find it a terrible business practice to be completely opaque and vague about limits. Even worse, the limits seem to be dynamic and change all the time. I understand that there is a lot of usage happening, but most likely it means that the $20 per month is too cheap anyway, if an average user like myself can so…

Yeah it's crazy to me you can't just 10x your price to 10x your usage (since you could kind of do this manually by creating more accounts). I would easily pay $200/month for 10x usage - especially now with MCP servers where Claude Desktop + vanilla VS Code is arguably more effective than Cursor/Windsurf.

Oh very intriguing! Could you please elaborate how you are using MCP servers with VS code for coding?

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#89

Post by chipgap98 »

carbocation wrote: post #68

If this is also available via API, then I could easily see myself keeping the $20/mo pro and supplementing with API-based calls to the $200/mo Pro model as needed.

Yeah when I saw the price tag I was hoping that some amount of API usage would be budgeted for this. It doesn't seem that way though

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#90

Post by drooby »

freedomben wrote: post #30

The price feels outrageous, but I think the unsaid truth of this is that they think o1 is good enough to replace employees. For example, if it's really as good at coding as they say, I could see this being a point where some people decide that a team of 5 devs with o1 pro can do the work of 6 or 7 devs without o1 pro.

In a hypothetical world where this was integrated with code reviews, and minimized developer time (writing valid/useful comments), and minimized bugs by even a small percentage... $200/m is a no-brainer.

The question is - how good is it really.

Post reply on HN