311–320 of 1001 posts
If it getting things wrong, then don't use it for those things. If you can't find things that it gets right, then it's not useful to you. That doesn't mean those cases don't exist.
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.
> 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.…
They're bleeding money and are desperately looking for a business model to survive. It's not going very well. Zitron[1] (among others) has outlined this.
> OpenAI's monthly revenue hit $300 million in August, and the company expects to make $3.7 billion in revenue this year (the company will, as mentioned, lose $5 billion anyway), yet the company says that it expects to make $11.6 billion in 2025 and $100 billion by 2029, a statement so egregious that I am surprised it's not some kind of financial crime to say it out loud. […] At present, OpenAI makes $225 million a month — $2.7 billion a year — by selling premium subscriptions to ChatGPT. To hit a revenue target of $11.6 billion in 2025, OpenAI would need to increase revenue from ChatGPT customers by 310%.[1]
Surprise surprise, they just raised the price.
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.
Maybe not as true in the US, but reading about the green bubble debacle, it's also a lot about status.
The main difficulty when pricing a monthly subscription for "unlimited" usage of a product is the 1% of power users who use have extreme use of the product that can kill any profit margins for the product as a whole. Pricing ChatGPT Pro at $200/mo filters it to only power users/enterprise, and given the cost of the GPT-o1 API, it wouldn't surprise me if those power users burn through $200 worth of compute very, very…
Is compute that expensive? An H100 rents at about $2.50/hour, it's 80 hours of pure compute. Assuming 720 hours a month, 1/9 duty cycle around the clock, or 1/3 if we assume 8-hour work day. It's really intense, constant use. And I bet OpenAI spend less on operating their infra than the rate at which cloud providers rent it out.
[flagged]
it's literally the cost of a cup per coffee per day
Just to put that into perspective.
I also really don't find comparisons like this to be that useful. Any subscription can be converted into an exchange rate of coffee, or meals. So what?
[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
The problem is whether it can saves you $180/mo more than Claude does.
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 difference between a person and a bot is that a person has a stake in the outcome. A bot is like a person who's already put in their two weeks notice and doesn't have to be there to see the outcome of their work.
[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.
The NFT market lasted for many years and was enormous.
Never underestimate the power of hype.
Question, what stops openai from downgrading existing models so that you're pushed up the subscription tiers to ever more expensive models? I'd imagine they're currently losing a ton of money supplying everyone with decent models with a ton of compute behind them because they want us to become addicted to using them right? The fact that classic free web searching is becoming diluted by low quality AI content will mak…
I can't tell how much they loose but they also have decent revenue "The company's annualized revenue topped $1.6 billion in December [2023]" https://www.reuters.com/technology/openai-hits-2-bln-revenue...
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.