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

481–490 of 1001 posts

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#481

Post by _cs2017_ »

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…

No internet access makes it very hard to benefit from o1 pro. Most of the complex questions I would ask require google search for research papers, language or library docs, etc. Not sure why o1 pro is banned from the internet, was it caught downloading too much porn or something?

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#482

Post by fudged71 »

vessenes wrote: post #461
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…

The new pricing tier suggests they're taking the Jobs approach - betting that their technology integration and reliability will justify premium positioning. But they face more intense commoditization pressure than either IBM or Apple did, given the rapid advancement of open-source models.

The critical question is timing - if they wait too long to establish their enterprise position, they risk being overtaken by commoditization as IBM was. Move too aggressively, and they might prematurely abandon advantages in the broader market, as Apple nearly did under Gassée.

Threading the needle. I don't envy their position here. Especially with Musk in the Trump administration.

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#483

Post by thih9 »

What does unlimited use mean in practice? Can I build a chatbot and make it publicly available and free?

Edit: looks like no, there are restrictions:

> usage must adhere to our Terms of Use, which prohibits, among other things:

> Abusive usage, such as automatically or programmatically extracting data.

> Sharing your account credentials or making your account available to anyone else.

> Reselling access or using ChatGPT to power third-party services.

> (…)

Source: https://help.openai.com/en/articles/9793128-what-is-chatgpt-...

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#484

Post by londons_explore »

minimaxir wrote: post #41

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…

I wouldn't be surprised if the "unlimited" product is unlimited requests, but the quality of the responses drop if you ask millions of questions...

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#485

Post by GrantMoyer »

motoxpro wrote: post #311

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.

In that case, wouldn't they be spending 200$ to get payed 200$ less?

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#486

Post by BoorishBears »

superfrank wrote: post #193
griomnib wrote: post #84

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.

I've heard this a lot and so I switched to Claude for a month and was super disappointed. What are you mainly using ChatGPT for? Personally, I found Claude marginally better for coding, but far, far worse for just general purpose questions (e.g. I'm a new home owner and I need to winterize my house before our weather drops below freezing. What are some steps I should take or things I should look into?)

It's ironic because I never want to ask an LLM for something like your example general purpose question, where I can't just cheaply and directly test the correctness of the answer

But we're hurtling towards all the internet's answers to general purpose questions being SEO spam that was generated by an LLM anyways.

Since OpenAI probably isn't hiring as many HVAC technicians to answer queries as they are programmers, it feels like we're headed towards a death spiral where either having the LLM do actual research from non-SEO affected primary sources, or finding a human who's done that research will be the only options for generic knowledge questions that are off the beaten path

-

Actually to test my hypothesis I just tried this with ChatGPT with internet access.

The list of winterization tips cited an article that felt pretty "delvey". I search the author's name and their LinkedIn profile is about how they professionally write marketing content (nothing about HVAC), one of their accomplishments is Generative AI, and their like feed is full of AI mentions for writing content.

So ChatGPT is already at a place where when it searches for "citations", it's just spitting back out its own uncited answers above answers by actual experts (since the expert sources aren't as SEO-driven)

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#487

Post by jwpapi »

warkanlock wrote: post #366
motoxpro wrote: post #311

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.

Serious question: Who earns (other than C-level) $150 an hour in a sane (non-US) world?

I do start at $300/hr

I didn’t just set that, I need to set that to best serve.

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#488

Post by jwpapi »

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…

Wait how did you buy it. I’m just getting forwarded to Team Plan I already have. Sitting in Germany, tried US VPN as well.

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#489

Post by szundi »

echoangle wrote: post #191
MP_1729 wrote: post #147

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.

Depends on the definition of better. Above example used this definition implicitly as you can see.

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#490

Post by EternalFury »

I give o1 a URL and I ask it to comment on how well the corresponding web page markets a service to an audience I define in clear detail.

o1 generates a couple of pages of comments before admitting it didn’t access the web page and entirely based its analysis on the definition of the audience.

Post reply on HN