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

491–500 of 1001 posts

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#491

Post by thih9 »

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…

They are ready for this, there is a policy against automation, sharing or reselling access; it looks like there are some unspecified quotas as well:

> We have guardrails in place to help prevent misuse and are always working to improve our systems. This may occasionally involve a temporary restriction on your usage. We will inform you when this happens, and if you think this might be a mistake, please don’t hesitate to reach out to our support team at help.openai.com using the widget at the bottom-right of this page. If policy-violating behavior is not found, your access will be restored.

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

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#492

Post by daemonologist »

Atotalnoob wrote: post #425
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…

AI writing detectors are snake oil

They're not very accurate, but I think snake oil is a bit too far - they're better than guessing at least for the specific model(s) they're trained on. OpenAI's classifier [0] was at 26% recall, 91% precision when it launched, though I don't know what models created the positives in their test set. (Of course they later withdrew that classifier due to its low accuracy, which I think was the right move. When a company offers both an AI Writer and an AI Writing detector people are going to take its predictions as gospel and _that_ is definitely a problem.)

All that aside, most models have had a fairly distinctive writing style, particularly when fed no or the same system prompt every time. If o1-Pro blends in more with human writing that's certainly... interesting.

[0] https://openai.com/index/new-ai-classifier-for-indicating-ai...

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#493

Post by newsclues »

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.

Maybe not very long, but long enough is plausible.

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#494

Post by CamperBob2 »

jackson1442 wrote: post #465
fassssst wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

The thing is, when it hallucinates API functions and parameters, they aren't random garbage. Usually, those functions and parameters should have been there.

Things that should make you go "Hmm."

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#495

Post by pc86 »

truetraveller wrote: post #351
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.

Yes. But also from the perspective of saving time. If it saves an additional 2 hours/month, and you make six figures, it's worth it. And the perspective of frustration as well. Business class is 4x the price of regular. definitely not 4x better. But it saves times + frustration.

It's not worth it if you're a W2 employee and you'll just spend those 2 hours doing other work. Realistically, working 42 hours a week instead of 40 will not meaningfully impact your performance, so doing 42 hours a week of work in 40 won't, either.

I pay $20/mo for Claude because it's been better than GPT for my use case, and I'm fine paying that but I wouldn't even consider something 10x the price unless it is many, many times better. I think at least 4-5x better is when I'd consider it and this doesn't appear to be anywhere close to even 2x better.

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#496

Post by Someone1234 »

Why doesn't Pro include longer context windows?

I'm a Plus member, and the biggest limitation I am running into by far is the maximum length of a context window. I'm having context fall out of scope throughout the conversion or not being able to give it a large document that I can then interrogate.

So if I go from paying $20/month for 32,000 tokens, to $200/month for Pro, I expect something more akin to Enterprise's 128,000 tokens or MORE. But they don't even discuss the context window AT ALL.

For anyone else out there looking to build a competitor I STRONGLY recommend you consider the context window as a major differentiator. Let me give you an example of a usage which ChatGPT just simply cannot do very well today: Dump a XML file into it, then ask it questions about that file. You can attach files to ChatGPT, but it is basically pointless because it isn't able to view the entire file at once due to, again, limited context windows.

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#497

Post by bee_rider »

EternalFury wrote: post #490

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.

This service is going to be devastating to consultants and middle managers.

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#498

Post by pc86 »

vessenes wrote: post #267
vessenes wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think of them as different people -- I'll say that I use them in "ensemble mode" for coding, the workflow is Claude 3.5 by default -- when Claude is spinning, o1-preview to discuss, Claude to implement. Worst case o1-preview to implement, although I think its natural coding style is slightly better than Claude's. The speed difference isn't worth it. The intersection of problems I have where both have trouble is pre…

Okay, tried it out. Early indications - it feels a bit more concise, thank god, certainly more concise than 4o -- it's s l o w. Getting over 1m times to parse codebases. There's some sort of caching going on though, follow up queries are a bit faster (30-50s). I note that this is still superhuman speeds, but it's not writing at the speed Groqchat can output Llama 3.1 8b, that is for sure. Code looks really clean. I'm…

When you say "parse codebases" is this uploading a couple thousand lines in a few different files? Or pasting in 75 lines into the chat box? Or something else?

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#499

Post by TeMPOraL »

pentagrama wrote: post #329

The argument of more compute power for this plan can be true, but this is also a pricing tactic known as the decoy effect or anchoring. Here's how it works: 1. A company introduces a high-priced option (the "decoy"), often not intended to be the best value for most customers. 2. This premium option makes the other plans seem like better deals in comparison, nudging customers toward the one the company actually wants…

Of course this breaks down once you have a competitor like Anthropic, serving similarly-priced Plan A and B for their equivalently powerful models; adding a more expensive decoy plan C doesn't help OpenAI when their plan B pricing is primarily compared against Anthropic's plan B.

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#500

Post by pc86 »

asterix_pano wrote: post #345
aliasxneo wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't used ChatGPT in a few weeks now. I still maintain subscriptions to both ChatGPT and Claude, but I'm very close to dropping ChatGPT entirely. The only useful thing it provides over Claude is a decent mobile voice mode and web search.

If you don't want to necessarily have to pick between one or the other, there are services like this one that let you basically access all the major LLMs and only pay per use: https://nano-gpt.com/

I've used TypingMind and it's pretty great, I like the idea of just plugging in a couple API keys and paying a fraction, but I really wish there was some overlap.

If a random query via the API costs a fifth of a cent why can't I can't 10 free API calls w/ my $20/mo premium subscription?

Post reply on HN