$200 per month means it must be good enough at your job to replicate and replace a meaningful fraction of your total work. Valid? For coding, probably. For other purposes I remain on the fence.
I don't trust it for coding either.
ChatGPT Pro
121–130 of 1001 posts
Re: ChatGPT Pro
#122[flagged]
What evidence or data, if you (hypothetically) saw it, do you think would disprove the thesis that "[LLMs] will ALWAYS be the wrong tool for the job"?
You're attempting to set goal posts for a logical argument, like we're talking about religion or politics, and you've skipped the part about mutually agreeing on definitions. Define what an LLM is, in technical terms, and you will have your answer about why it is not intelligent, and not capable of reasoning. It is a statistical language model that predicts the next token of a plausible response, one token at a time. No matter how you dress it up, that's all it can ever do, by definition. The evidence or data that would change my mind is if instead of talking about LLMs, we were talking about some other technology that does not yet exist, but that is fundamentally different than an LLM.
Re: ChatGPT Pro
#123Yesterday, I spent 4.5hrs crafting a very complex Google Sheets formula—think Lambda, Map, Let, etc., for 82 lines. If I knew it would take that long, I would have just done it via AppScript. But it was 50% kinda working, so I kept giving the model the output, and it provided updated formulas back and forth for 4.5hrs. Say my time is $100/hr - that’s $450. So even if the new ChatGPT Pro mode isn’t any smarter but is 50% faster, that’s $225 saved just in time alone. It would probably get that formula right in 10min with a few back-and-forth messages, instead of 4.5hrs. Plus, I used about $62 worth of API credits in their not-so-great Playground. I see similar situations of extreme ROI every few days, let alone all the other uses. I’d pay $500/mo, but beyond that, I’d probably just stick with Playground & API.
Re: ChatGPT Pro
#124The 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…
[flagged]
Re: ChatGPT Pro
#125A lot of these tools aren't going to have this kind of value (for me) until they are operating autonomously at some level. For example, "looking at" my inbox and prepping a bundle of proposed responses for items I've been sitting on, drafting an agenda for a meeting scheduled for tomorrow, prepping a draft LOI based on a transcript of a Teams chat and my meeting notes, etc. Forcing me to initiate everything is (uncomfortably) like forcing me to micromanage a junior employee who isn't up to standards: it interrupts the complex work the AI tool cannot do for the lower value work it can.
I'm not saying I expect these tools to be at this level right now. I'm saying that level is where I will start to see these tools as anything more than an expensive and sometimes impressive gimmick. (And, for the record, Copilot's current integration into Office applications doesn't even meet that low bar.)
Re: ChatGPT Pro
#126[flagged]
$200 a month is potentially a bargain since it comes with unlimited advanced voice. Via the API, $200 used to only get you 14 hours of advanced voice.
Re: ChatGPT Pro
#127[flagged]
Wouldn't you say the same thing for most of the people? Most of the people suck at verifying truth and reasoning. Even "intelligent" people make mistakes based on their biases. 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.
The difference between a person and a bot is that a person has a stake in the outcome. A bot is like a person who's already put in their two weeks notice and doesn't have to be there to see the outcome of their work.
Re: ChatGPT Pro
#128The 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…
I wish the second paragraph was the launch announcement
Re: ChatGPT Pro
#129There are many use cases for which the price can go even higher. I look at recent interactions with people that were working at an interview mill: Multiple people in a boiler room interviewing for companies all day long, with a computer set up so that our audio was being piped to o1. They had a reasonable prompt to remove many chatbot-ism, and make it provide answers that seem people-like: We were 100% interviewing t…
So, wait a minute, when interviewing candidates, you're making them invest their valuable time talking to an AI interviewer, and not even disclosing to them that they aren't even talking to a real human? That seems highly unethical to me, yet not even slightly surprising. My question is, what variables are being optimized for here? It's certainly not about efficiently matching people with jobs, it seems to be more ab…
It sounds like a setup where applicants hire some third-party company to perhaps "represent the client" in the interview and that company hired a bunch of people to be the interviewee on their clients behalf. Presumably also neither the company nor the applicant disclose this arrangement to the hiring manager.
Re: ChatGPT Pro
#130There are many use cases for which the price can go even higher. I look at recent interactions with people that were working at an interview mill: Multiple people in a boiler room interviewing for companies all day long, with a computer set up so that our audio was being piped to o1. They had a reasonable prompt to remove many chatbot-ism, and make it provide answers that seem people-like: We were 100% interviewing t…
So, wait a minute, when interviewing candidates, you're making them invest their valuable time talking to an AI interviewer, and not even disclosing to them that they aren't even talking to a real human? That seems highly unethical to me, yet not even slightly surprising. My question is, what variables are being optimized for here? It's certainly not about efficiently matching people with jobs, it seems to be more ab…
[deleted]