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

161–170 of 1001 posts

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#161

Post by jerjerjer »

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.

The issue is that most people, especially when prompted, can provide their level of confidence in the answer or even refuse to provide an answer if they are not sure. LLMs, by default, seem to be extremely confident in their answers, and it's quite hard to get the "confidence" level out of them (if that metric is even applicable to LLMs). That's why they are so good at duping people into believing them after all.

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#162

Post by MP_1729 »

tedsanders wrote: post #83
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…

My 3rd day intern still couldn't do a script o1-preview could do in less than 25 prompts.

OBVIOUSLY a smart OAI employee wouldn't want the public to think they are already replacing high-level humans.

And OBVIOUSLY OAI senior management will want to try to convince AI engineers that might have 2nd-guessings about their work that they aren't developing a replacement for human beings.

But they are.

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#163

Post by wslh »

yosito wrote: post #75

[flagged]

> $200 a month for this is insane, but I have a feeling that part of the reason they're charging so much is to give people more confidence in the model.

Is it possible that they have subsidized the infrastructure for free and paid users and they realized that OpenAI requires a higher revenue to maintain the current demand?

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#164

Post by yosito »

ghshephard wrote: post #144
yosito wrote: post #75

[flagged]

If you do a lot of work in an area that o1 is strong in - $200/month effectively rounds down to $0 - and a single good answer at the right time could justify that entire $200 in a single go.

Presumably, this is what they want the marks buying the $200 plan to think. Whether it's actually capable of providing answers worth $200 and not just sweet talking is the whole question.

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#165

Post by jrflowers »

> It also includes o1 pro mode, a version of o1 that uses more compute to think harder

I like that this kind of verifies that OpenAI can simply adjust how much compute a request gets and still say you’re getting the full power of whatever model they’re running. I wouldn’t be surprised if the amount of compute allocated to “pro mode” is more or less equivalent to what was the standard free allocation given to models before they all got mysteriously dramatically stupider.

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#166

Post by josephg »

dubeye wrote: post #145
yosito wrote: post #75

[flagged]

If i'm happy to pay 20 in retirement just for the odd bit of writing help, then i can easily imagine it being worth 200 to someone with a job

Yep. I’m currently paying for both Claude and chatgpt because they’re good at different things. I can’t tell whether this is extremely cheap or expensive - last week Claude saved me about a day of time by writing a whole lot of very complex sql queries for me. The value is insane.

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#168

Post by elorant »

Everyone rants about the price, but if you’re handling large numbers of documents for classification or translations $200/month for unlimited use seems like a bargain.

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#169

Post by charlieyu1 »

MarcScott wrote: post #33
frakt0x90 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ai is no where near the level of leaving behind those that aren't using it. Especially not at the individual consumer level like this.

Anecdotally, as an educator, I am already seeing a digital divide occurring, with regard to accessing AI. This is not even at a premium/pro subscription level, but simply at a 'who has access to a device at home or work' level, and who is keeping up with the emerging tech. I speak to kids that use LLMs all the time to assist them with their school work, and others who simply have no knowledge that this tech exists. I…

It has been bad for not having access to a device for at least 20 years. I can’t imagine anyone doing well in their studies with a search engine.

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#170

Post by yosito »

AlanYx wrote: post #126
yosito wrote: post #75

[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.

I've got unlimited "advanced voice" with Perplexity for $10/mo. You're defining a bargain based on the arbitrary limits set by the company offering you said bargain.
Post reply on HN