Earlier quoted context omitted.
Give me a prompt and I'll share the result.
Great! Suggested prompt below: I need help creating a comprehensive Anki deck system for my 8-year-old who is following a classical education model based on the trivium (grammar stage). The child has already: - Mastered numerous Latin and Greek root words - Achieved mathematics proficiency equivalent to US 5th grade - Demonstrated strong memorization capabilities Please create a detailed 12-month learning plan with s…
ChatGPT Pro
471–480 of 1001 posts
Re: ChatGPT Pro
#472I 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…
AI writing detectors are snake oil
Startup I'm at has generated a LOT of content using LLMs and once you've reviewed enough of the output, you can easily see specific patterns in the output.
Some words/phrases that, by default, it overuses: "dive into", "delve into", "the world of", and others.
You correct it with instructions, but it will then find synonyms so there is also a structural pattern to the output that it favors by default. For example, if we tell it "Don't start your writing with 'dive into'", it will just switch to "delve into" or another synonym.
Yes, all of this can be corrected if you put enough effort into the prompt and enough iterations to fix all of these tells.
Re: ChatGPT Pro
#473Re: ChatGPT Pro
#474anyone else having trouble giving them money? i desperately want to consume this product and they won't let me...
Re: ChatGPT Pro
#475Earlier quoted context omitted.
AI writing detectors are snake oil
Yeah but they "detect" the characteristic AI style: The limited way it structures sentences, the way it lays out arguments, the way it tends to close with an "in conclusion" paragraph, certain word choices, etc. o1-Pro doesn't do any of that. It writes like a human. Damnit. It's too good. It just saved me ~6 hours in drafting a complicated and bespoke legal document. Before you ask: I know what I'm doing, and it did…
> Before you ask: I know what I'm doing, and it did a better job in five minutes than I could have done over those six hours.
Seems like lawyers could do more faster because they know what they are doing. Experts dont get replaced, they get tools to amplify and extend their expertise
Re: ChatGPT Pro
#476[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.
Ok.
Let's say I run a company call AndSoft.
AndSoft has about 2000 people on staff, maybe 1000 programers.
This solution will cost 200k per year. Or 2.4 million per year.
Llama3 is effectively free with some liberation. Is ChatGPT pro 2.4 million a year better than Llama3. Of course Open AI will offer volume discounts.
I imagine if I was making north of 500k a year I'd subscribe as a curiosity... At least for a few months.
If your time is worth 250$ a hour, and this saves you an hour per month it's well worth it.
Re: ChatGPT Pro
#477I 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…
> Aside from favoring the long em-dash (—) which isn't on most keyboards Interesting! I intentionally edit my keyboard layout to include the em-dash, as I enjoy using it out of sheer pomposity—I should undoubtedly delve into the extent to which my own comments have been used to train GPT models!
–: alt+shift+minus on my azerty(fr) mac keyboard. I use it constantly. "Stylometry" hazard though !
Re: ChatGPT Pro
#478Earlier quoted context omitted.
Give me a prompt and I'll share the result.
Write me a review of "The Malazan Book of the Fallen" with the main argument being that it could be way shorter
Did this unironically.
https://chatgpt.com/share/67522170-8fec-8005-b01c-2ff174356d...
It's a bit overwrought, but not too bad.
Re: ChatGPT Pro
#479Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, wait a minute, when interviewing candidates, you're making them invest their valuable time talking to an AI interviewer, and not even disclosing to them that they aren't even talking to a real human? That seems highly unethical to me, yet not even slightly surprising. My question is, what variables are being optimized for here? It's certainly not about efficiently matching people with jobs, it seems to be more ab…
Scams and other antisocial use cases are basically the only ones for which the damn things are actually the kind of productivity rocket-fuel people want them to be, so far. We better hope that changes sharply, or these things will be a net-negative development.
Right? To me it's eerily similar to how cryptocurrency was sold as a general replacement for all money uses, but turned out to be mainly useful for societally negative things like scams and money laundering.
Re: ChatGPT Pro
#480Earlier quoted context omitted.
AI writing detectors are snake oil
Startup I'm at has generated a LOT of content using LLMs and once you've reviewed enough of the output, you can easily see specific patterns in the output. Some words/phrases that, by default, it overuses: "dive into", "delve into", "the world of", and others. You correct it with instructions, but it will then find synonyms so there is also a structural pattern to the output that it favors by default. For example, if…
[flagged]