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

241–250 of 1001 posts

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#241

Post by cryptoegorophy »

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've heard so much about Claude and decided to give it a try and it has been rather a major disappointment. I ended up using chatgpt as an assistant for claude's code writing because it just couldn't get things right. Had to cancel my subscription, no idea why people still promote it everywhere like it is 100x times better than chatgpt.

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#243

Post by throwaway314155 »

jrflowers wrote: post #165

> 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 b…

This was part of the premise of o1 though, no? By encouraging the model to output shorter/longer chains of thought, you can scale model performance (and costs) down/up at inference time.

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#244

Post by gwervc »

crazygringo wrote: post #119
yosito wrote: post #75

[flagged]

> In other words, it's a con. 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.

> A con like that wouldn't last very long.

That's not a problem. OpenAI need to get some cash from its product because the competition is intense from free models. Moreover, since they supposedly used most of the web content and pirated whatever else they could, improvements in training will likely be only incremental.

All the while, after the wow effect passed, more people start to realize the flaw in generative AI. So current hype, like all hype, as a limited shelf life and companies need to cash out now because it could be never.

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#246

Post by rusticpenn »

matteoraso wrote: post #234
crazygringo wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In other words, it's a con. 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.

>Whether LLM's help you at your work is extremely domain-dependent. I really doubt that, actually. The only thing that LLMs are truly good for is to create plausible-sounding text. Everything else, like generating facts, is outside of its main use case and known to frequently fail.

I use llms to do most of my dunki work.

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#247

Post by crackrook »

amelius wrote: post #214
daveguy wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Think of it as an intern. Don't trust everything they say.

I would hesitate to hire an intern that makes incorrect statements with maximum confidence and with no ability to learn from their mistakes.

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#248

Post by malux85 »

daveguy wrote: post #188
ghshephard wrote: post #144

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.

Then the lesson you have learned is “don’t blindly trust the machine”

Which is a very valuable lesson, worth more than $200

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#249

Post by [deleted] »

yosito wrote: post #158
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So, another, or several more, layers of ethical dubiousness.

[deleted]

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#250

Post by throwaway314155 »

benbristow wrote: post #42
netcraft wrote: post #11

With the release of Nova earlier this week thats even cheaper (I havent had a chance to really play with it yet to see how good it is) ive been thinking more about what happens when intelligence gets "too cheap to meter", but this def feels like a step in the other direction! Still though, if you were able to actually utilize this, is it capable of replacing a part-time or full-time employee? I think thats likely

Thought this was relating to Nova AI at first which confused me as it is just an OpenAI wrapper - https://novaapp.ai I see you mean Amazon's Nova - https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/aws/amazon-nova-artificial-...

Something about Amazon that just makes me assume any llm they come out with is half baked.
Post reply on HN