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

271–280 of 1001 posts

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#271

Post by omarhaneef »

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.

I think this is probably right but so far it seems that the areas in which an LLM is most effective do fine with the lower power models.

Example: the 4o or Claude are great for coding, summarizing and rewriting emails. So which domains require a slightly better model?

I suppose if the error rate in code or summary goes down even 10%, it might be worth $180/month.

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#272

Post by 404mm »

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 pay for both GPT and Claude and use them both extensively. Claude is my go-to for technical questions, GPT (4o) for simple questions, internet searches and validation of Claude answers. GPT o1-preview is great for more complex solutions and work on larger projects with multiple steps leading to finish. There’s really nothing like it that Anthropic provides. But $200/mo is way above what I’m willing to pay.

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#273

Post by crazygringo »

shortrounddev2 wrote: post #264
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.

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

That's a tired trope that simply isn't true.

Does Apple charge a premium? Of course. Do Apple products also tend to have better construction, greater reliability, consistent repair support, and hold their resale value better? Yes.

The idea that people are buying Apple because of the Apple premium simply doesn't hold up to any scrutiny. It's demonstrably not a Verblen good.

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#274

Post by TeMPOraL »

yosito wrote: post #221
jack_riminton wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a model is good enough (I’m not saying this one is that level) I could imagine individuals and businesses paying 20,000 a month. If they’re answering questions at phd level (again, not saying this one is) then for a lot of areas this makes sense

Let me know when the models are actually, verifiably, this good. They're barely good enough to replace interns at this point.

Let me know where you can find people that are individually capable at performing at intern level in every domain of knowledge and text-based activity known to mankind.

"Barely good enough to replace interns" is worth a lot to businesses already.

(On that note, a founder of a SAP competitor and a major IT corporation in Poland is fond of saying that "any specialist can be replaced by a finite number of interns". We'll soon get to see how true that is.)

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#275

Post by kraftman »

amazingamazing wrote: post #17

Let’s see if those folks saying they’ve doubled their productivity will pay.

I think it increases my productivity, but I'm also not really hitting limits with it, so it's hard to justify going from $20 to $200.

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#276

Post by vessenes »

xnx wrote: post #223

$200/month seems to be psychological pricing to imply superior quality. In a blind test, most would be hard-pressed to distinguish the results from other LLMs. For those that think $200/month is a good deal, why not $500/mo or $1000/mo?

I'll bite and say I'd evaluate the output at all those price points. $1k/mo is heading into "outsourced employee" territory, and my requirements for quality ratchet up quite a lot somewhere in that price range.

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#277

Post by subroutine »

Part of my justification for spending $20 per month on ChatGPT Plus was that I'd have the best access to the latest models and advanced features. I'll probably roll back to the free plan rather than pay $20/mo for mid tier plan access and support.

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#278

Post by pradn »

The price seems entirely reasonable. $200 is about 1-2 hours of a professional's time in the USA.

It's in everyone's interest for the company to be a sustainable business.

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#279

Post by acchow »

griomnib wrote: post #93
nine_k wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Suppose an employee costs a business, say, $10k/mo; it's 50 subscriptions. Can giving access to the AI to, say, 40 employees improve their performance enough to avoid the need of hiring another employee? This does not sound outlandish to me, at least in certain industries.

That’s the wrong question. The only question is “is this price reflective of 10x performance over the competition?”. The answer is almost definitely no.

Consider a $350k/year engineer.

If Claude increases their productivity 5% ($17.5k/yr), but CGPT Pro adds 7% ($24.5k), that's an extra $7k in productivity, which more than makes up for the $2400 annual cost. 10x the price, but only 40% better, but still worth it.

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#280

Post by PittleyDunkin »

tiahura wrote: post #261
matteoraso wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

What on earth is this work that they're doing that's so resilient to the fallible nature of LLMs? Is it just document search with a RAG?
Post reply on HN