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

261–270 of 1001 posts

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#261

Post by tiahura »

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.

LLMs have become indispensable for many attorneys. I know many other professionals that have been able to offload dozens of hours of work per month to ChatGPT and Claude.

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#262

Post by vundercind »

belter wrote: post #124
tedsanders wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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]

Yeah, to be fair, there exist employees (some of whom are managers) who could not be replaced and their absence would improve productivity. So the bar for “can this replace any employees at all?” is potentially so low that, technically, cat’ing from /dev/null can clear it, if you must have a computerized solution.

Companies won’t be able to figure those cases out, though, because if they could they’d already have gotten rid of those folks and replaced them with nothing.

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#264

Post by shortrounddev2 »

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.

Overcharging for a product to make it seem better than it really is has served apple well for decades

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#265

Post by ruszki »

j2kun wrote: post #179
vhayda wrote: post #123

Yesterday, 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…

> so I kept giving the model the output, and it provided updated formulas back and forth for 4.5hrs I read this as: "I have already ceded my expertise to an LLM, so I am happy that it is getting faster because now I can pay more money to be even more stuck using an LLM" Maybe the alternative to going back and forth with an AI for 4.5 hours is working smarter and using tools you're an expert in. Or building expertise…

If somebody claims that something can be done with LLM in 10 minutes which takes 4.5 hours for them, then they are definitely not experts. They probably have some surface knowledge, but that’s all. There is a reason why the better LLM demos are related to learn something new, like a new programming language. So far, all of the other kind of demos which I saw (e.g. generating new endpoints based on older ones) were clearly slower than experts, and they were slower to use for me in my respective field.

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#266

Post by pie420 »

MP_1729 wrote: post #147
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.

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.

ah yes, you must work at the company where you get paid per line of code. There's no way productivity is measured this accurately and you are rewarded directly in any job unless you are self-employed and get paid per website or something

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#267

Post by vessenes »

vessenes wrote: post #153
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 think of them as different people -- I'll say that I use them in "ensemble mode" for coding, the workflow is Claude 3.5 by default -- when Claude is spinning, o1-preview to discuss, Claude to implement. Worst case o1-preview to implement, although I think its natural coding style is slightly better than Claude's. The speed difference isn't worth it. The intersection of problems I have where both have trouble is pre…

Okay, tried it out. Early indications - it feels a bit more concise, thank god, certainly more concise than 4o -- it's s l o w. Getting over 1m times to parse codebases. There's some sort of caching going on though, follow up queries are a bit faster (30-50s). I note that this is still superhuman speeds, but it's not writing at the speed Groqchat can output Llama 3.1 8b, that is for sure.

Code looks really clean. I'm not instantly canceling my subscription.

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#268

Post by behringer »

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

I kind of feel this is a kick in the face.

Now I'll forever be using a second rate model because I'm not rich enough.

If I'm stuck using a second rate model I may go find someone else's model to use.

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#270

Post by [deleted] »

015a wrote: post #189
tedsanders wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Maybe someone at OAI should have considered the optics of leading the "12 days of product releases" with this, then.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN