291–300 of 1001 posts
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.
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.
People also pull this figure out of their ass, over or undertrust themselves, and lie. I'm not sure self-reported confidence is that interesting compared to "showing your work".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The lack of repairability is easily Apple's worst quality. They do everything in their power to prevent you from repairing devices by yourself or via 3rd party shops. When you take it to them to repair, they often will charge you more than the cost of a new device.
People buy apple devices for a variety of reasons; some people believe in a false heuristic that Apple devices are good for software engineering. Others are simply teenagers who don't want to be the poor kid in school with an Android. Conspicuous consumption is a large part of Apple's appeal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m watching some of this happening first and second hand, and have seen a lot of evidence of companies spending a ton of money on these, spinning up departments, buying companies, pivoting their entire company’s strategy to AI, et c, and zero of its meaningfully replacing employees. It takes very skilled people to use LLMs well, and the companies trying to turn 5 positions into 2 aren’t paying enough to reliably get…
Yes. The people who can use these tools to dramatically increase their capabilities and output without a significant drop in quality were already great engineers for which there was more demand than supply. That isn't going to change soon.
They’re ok for Tom the Section Manager to hack together a department newsletter nobody reads, though, even if Tom is bad at using LLMs. They’re decent at things that don’t need to be any good because they didn’t need to exist in the first place, lol.
[flagged]
> After awhile, I started realizing that these mistakes are present in almost all topics. A fun question I tried a couple of times is asking it to give me a list with famous talks about a topic. Or a list of famous software engineers and the topics they work on. A couple of names typically exist but many names and basically all talks are shamelessly made up.
Maybe they're just trying to get some money out of it while they can, as open models and other competition loom closer and closer behind...
Maybe. Gemini Exp 1121 is blowing my mind. Could be that OpenAI is seeing the context window disadvantage vs Google looming.
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.
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…
It’s insane to me that they don’t have a “pay $10 to have this temporary limit lifted” micro transaction model. They are leaving money on the table.
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…