361–370 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Having a tool that’s 10% better doesn’t make your whole work 10% better though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I have several local models I hit up first (Mixtral, Llama), if I don’t like the results then I’ll give same prompt to Claude and GPT. Overall though it’s really just for reference and/or telling me about some standard library function I didn’t know of. Somewhat counterintuitively I spend way more time reading language documentation than I used to, as the LLM is mainly useful in pointing me to language features. Afte…
THEY DONATED $200x10 TO A MEDICAL PROJECT? zomg. faint. sizzle.
Make 1000 grants. Make 10,000. 10? Seriously?
Has ANYONE tried it!?!? Is it any good !?!?! A worthwhile improvement? I need a binary answer here on whether to get it or not, thanks!
If one makes $150 an hour and it saves them 1.25 hours a month, then they break even. To me, it's just a non-deterministic calculator for words. 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.
Plot twist: the same guy runs both. They do the same thing and the same crew shows up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.…
A con? It's not that $200 is a con, their whole existence is a con. 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 $5 billion anyway), yet the company say…
They have also added a new, even higher performance model which can leverage test time compute to scale performance if you want to pay for that GPU time. This is no different than AWS offering some larger ec2 instance tier with more resources and a higher price tag than existing tiers.
[flagged]
I think should hire an economist or ask their superintelligence about the demand. The market is very shallow and nobody has any kind of moat. There is simply not enough math problems out there to apply it to. 200$ price tag really makes no sense to me unless this thing also cooks hot meals. I may be buying it for 100$ though.
$200 is two man hours. So if you save two hours a month, you are breaking even.