211–220 of 1001 posts
[flagged]
I mean this in what I hope will be taken in the most helpful way possible: you should update your thinking to at least imagine that intelligent thoughtful people see some value in ChatGPT. Or alternately that some of the people who see value in ChatGPT are intelligent and thoughtful. That is, aim for the more intelligent "Interesting, why do so many people like this? Where is it headed? Given that, what is worth doin…
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…
If you go through the API (with chatGPT at least), you pay per request and are never limited. I personally hate the feeling of being nickeled-and-dimed, but it might be what you are looking for.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I feel like a single bad answer at the wrong time could cost a heck of a lot more than $200. And these LLMs are riddled with bad answers.
[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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I feel like a single bad answer at the wrong time could cost a heck of a lot more than $200. And these LLMs are riddled with bad answers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/servers/tree/main/sr...
This way you will still be in control of commits and pushes.
So far I've used this to understand parts of a code base, and to make edits to a folder of markdown files.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not how pricing works. If o1-pro is 10% better than Claude, but you are a guy who makes $300,000 per year, but now can make $330,000 because o1-pro makes you more productive, then it makes sense to give Sam $2,400.
The math is never this clean, and no one has ever experienced this (though I'm sure its a justification that was floated at OAI HQ at least once).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> 25 prompts Interested to learn more, is that the usual break even point?
What happens when people get so addicted to using AI they just can’t stand working without it, and then the pricing is pushed up to absurd levels? Will people shell out $2k a year just to use AI?