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

461–470 of 1001 posts

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#461

Post by vessenes »

fudged71 wrote: post #443

OpenAI is racing against two clocks: the commoditization clock (how quickly open-source alternatives catch up) and the monetization clock (their need to generate substantial revenue to justify their valuation). The ultimate success of this strategy depends on what we might call the enterprise AI adoption curve - whether large organizations will prioritize the kind of integrated, reliable, and "safe" AI solutions Open…

Agreed on the strategy questions. It's interesting to tie back to IBM; my first reaction was that openai has more consumer connectivity than IBM did in the desktop era, but I'm not sure that's true. I guess what is true is that IBM passed over the "IBM Compatible" -> "MS DOS Compatible" business quite quickly in the mid 80s; seemingly overnight we had the death of all minicomputer companies and the rise of PC desktop companies.

I agree that if you're sure you have a commodity product, then you should make sure you're in the driver seat with those that will pay more, and also try and grind less effective players out. (As a strategy assessment, not a moral one).

You could think of Apple under JLG and then being handed back to Jobs as precisely being two perspectives on the answer to "does Apple have a commodity product?" Gassée thought it did, and we had the era of Apple OEMs, system integrators, other boxes running Apple software, and Jobs thought it did not; essentially his first act was to kill those deals.

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#462

Post by ingen0s »

xanderlewis wrote: post #408
shortrounddev2 wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Apple products are expensive — sometimes to a degree that almost seems to be taking the piss. But name one other company whose hardware truly matches Apple’s standards for precision and attention to detail.

Indeed

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#463

Post by monkey_monkey »

yosito wrote: post #200
jrflowers wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In other words, it's a con. I'm a paying Perplexity user I love this back-to-back pair of statements. It is like “You can never win three card monte. I pay a monthly subscription fee to play it.”

I pay $10/month for perplexity because I fully understand its limitations. I will not pay $200/month for an LLM.

I am CERTAIN you do not FULLY understand its limitations.

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#464

Post by spaceman_2020 »

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.

HN has been just such an awful place to discuss AI. Everyone here is convinced its a grift, a con, and we're all "marks"

Just zero curiosity, only skepticism.

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#465

Post by jackson1442 »

fassssst wrote: post #240
j2kun wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I learn stuff when using these tools just like I learn stuff when reading manuals and StackOverflow. It’s basically a more convenient manual.

A more convenient manual that frequently spouts falsehoods, sure.

My favorite part is when it includes parameters in its output that are not and have never been a part of the API I'm trying to get it to build against.

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#466

Post by jamwil »

I’ll say one thing. As an existing Plus subscriber, if I see a single nag to upgrade that I can’t dismiss entirely and permanently, I will cancel and move elsewhere. Nothing irks me more as an existing paying customer than the words ‘Upgrade Now’ or a greyed out menu option with a little [PRO] badge to the side.

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#467

Post by vessenes »

A_D_E_P_T wrote: post #407

I just bought a pro subscription. First impressions: The new o1-Pro model is an insanely good writer. Aside from favoring the long em-dash (—) which isn't on most keyboards, it has none of the quirks and tells of old GPT-4/4o/o1. It managed to totally fool every "AI writing detector" I ran it through. It can handle unusually long prompts. It appears to be very good at complex data analysis. I need to put it through i…

I noticed a writing style difference, too, and I prefer it. More concise. On the coding side, it's done very well on large (well as large as it can manage) codebase assessment, bug finding, etc. I will reach for it rather than o1-preview for sure.

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#468

Post by clutchdude »

athrowaway3z wrote: post #415
yosito wrote: post #75

[flagged]

I've actually hit a interesting situation a few times that make use of this. If some language feature, argument, or configuration option doesn't exists it will hallucinate one. This hallucination is usually a very good choice to name the option / API.

I've seen this before and it's frustrating to deal with chasing phantom APIs it invents.

I wish it could just say "There is not a good approximation of this API existing - I would suggest reviewing the following docs/sources:....".

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#469

Post by bena »

_fat_santa wrote: post #403
maxlamb wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most consultants with more than 3 years of experience are billed at $150/hr or more

> billed That's what they are billed at, what they take home from that is probably much lower. At my org we bill folks out for ~$150/hr and their take home is ~$80/hr

Yeah, at a place where I worked, we billed at around $150. Then there was an escalating commision based on amount billed.

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#470

Post by kaiwen1 »

I know a guy who owned a tropical resort on a island where competiton was sprouting up all around him. He was losing money trying to keep up with the quality offered by his neighbors. His solution was to charge a lot more for an experience that was really no better, and often worse, than the resorts next door. This didn't work.
Post reply on HN