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

131–140 of 1001 posts

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#131

Post by lukan »

nemonemo wrote: post #116
yosito wrote: post #75

[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.

Intelligent people will know they made a mistake, if given a hint and figure out what went wrong.

A LLM will just pretend to care about the error and happily repeats the error over and over.

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#132

Post by vundercind »

disqard wrote: post #77
onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #51

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

I'm rooting for this to happen at scale. It'll be an object lesson in short-termism. (and provide some job security, perhaps)

No lessons will be learned, but it’ll provide for some sweet, if unpleasant, contract gigs.

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#133

Post by sangeeth96 »

nemonemo wrote: post #116
yosito wrote: post #75

[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.

> they may argue more peacefully

bit of a stretch.

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#134

Post by fourside »

nemonemo wrote: post #116
yosito wrote: post #75

[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.

How is this a counter argument that LLMs are marketed as having intelligence when it’s more accurate to think of them as predictive models? The fact that humans are also flawed isn’t super relevant to a $200/month LLM purchasing decision.

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#135

Post by yosito »

nemonemo wrote: post #116
yosito wrote: post #75

[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.

Yeah, most people suck at verifying truth and reasoning. But most information technology employees, above intern level, are highly capable of reasoning and making decisions in their area of expertise.

Try asking an LLM complex questions in your area of expertise. Interview it as if you needed to be confident that it could do your job. You'll quickly find out that it can't do your job, and isn't actually capable of reasoning.

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#136

Post by arresin »

I think from this fine print there will be a quota with o1 pro:

> This plan includes unlimited access to our smartest model, OpenAI o1, as well as to o1-mini, GPT-4o, and Advanced Voice. It also includes o1 pro mode,

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#138

Post by aliasxneo »

griomnib wrote: post #84

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.

I haven't used ChatGPT in a few weeks now. I still maintain subscriptions to both ChatGPT and Claude, but I'm very close to dropping ChatGPT entirely. The only useful thing it provides over Claude is a decent mobile voice mode and web search.

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#140

Post by nine_k »

minimaxir wrote: post #41

The main difficulty when pricing a monthly subscription for "unlimited" usage of a product is the 1% of power users who use have extreme use of the product that can kill any profit margins for the product as a whole. Pricing ChatGPT Pro at $200/mo filters it to only power users/enterprise, and given the cost of the GPT-o1 API, it wouldn't surprise me if those power users burn through $200 worth of compute very, very…

Is compute that expensive? An H100 rents at about $2.50/hour, it's 80 hours of pure compute. Assuming 720 hours a month, 1/9 duty cycle around the clock, or 1/3 if we assume 8-hour work day. It's really intense, constant use. And I bet OpenAI spend less on operating their infra than the rate at which cloud providers rent it out.
Post reply on HN