111–120 of 1001 posts
[flagged]
Or each user doing an o1 model prompt is probably like, really expensive and they need to charge for it until they can get cost down? Anybody have estimates on what a single request into o1 costs on their end? Like GPU, memory, all the "thought" tokens?
[flagged]
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.
I haven't used ChatGPT enough to judge what a "fair price" is but $200/month seems to be in the ballpark of other "software-tools-for-highly-paid-knowledge-workers" with premium pricing:
- mathematicians: Wolfram Mathematica is $154/mo
- attorneys: WestLaw legal research service is ~$200/month with common options added
- engineers for printed circuit boards : Altium Designer is $355/month
- CAD/CAM designers: Siemens NX base subscription is $615/month
- financial traders : Bloomberg Terminal is ~$2100/month
It will be interesting to see if OpenAI can maintain the $200/month pricing power like the sustainable examples above. The examples in other industries have sustained their premium prices even though there are cheaper less-featured alternatives (sometimes including open source). Indeed, they often increase their prices each year instead of discount them.
One difference from them is that OpenAI has much more intense competition than those older businesses.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That'll work out nicely when you have 5 people learning nothing and just asking GPT to do everything and then you have a big terrible codebase that GPT can't effectively operate on, and a team that doesn't know how to do anything. Bullish
Sounds like a great market opportunity for consulting gigs to clean up the aftermath at medium size companies.
I think should hire an economist or ask their superintelligence about the demand. The market is very shallow and nobody has any kind of moat. There is simply not enough math problems out there to apply it to. 200$ price tag really makes no sense to me unless this thing also cooks hot meals. I may be buying it for 100$ though.
[flagged]
I think at least LLMs are more receptive to the idea that they may be wrong, and based on that, we can have N diverse LLMs and they may argue more peacefully and build a reliable consensus than N "intelligent" people.
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.
Or Anthropic will follow suit.
I think should hire an economist or ask their superintelligence about the demand. The market is very shallow and nobody has any kind of moat. There is simply not enough math problems out there to apply it to. 200$ price tag really makes no sense to me unless this thing also cooks hot meals. I may be buying it for 100$ though.
[flagged]
A con like that wouldn't last very long.
This is for people who rely enough on ChatGPT Pro features that it becomes worth it. Whether they pay for it because they're freelance, or their employer does.
Just because an LLM doesn't boost your productivity, doesn't mean it doesn't for people in other lines of work. Whether LLM's help you at your work is extremely domain-dependent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or Anthropic will follow suit.
Am I wrong that Anthropic doesn't really have a match yet to ChatGPT's o1 model (a "reasoning" model?)