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

501–510 of 1001 posts

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#501

Post by jwpapi »

fudged71 wrote: post #482
vessenes wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 commo…

It’s not just opensource. It’s also Claude, Meta and Google, of which the latter have real estate (social media and browser)

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#503

Post by TeMPOraL »

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.

A "10% better" tool could make no difference, or it could make the work 100% better. The impact isn't linear.

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#504

Post by dgacmu »

A_D_E_P_T wrote: post #444
Atotalnoob wrote: post #425

Earlier 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…

ahh, but:

> I know what I'm doing

Is exactly the key element in being able to use spicy autocomplete. If you don't know what you're doing, it's going to bite you and you won't know it until it's too late. "GPT messed up the contract" is not an argument I would envy anyone presenting in court or to their employer. :)

(I say this mostly from using tools like copilot)

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#505

Post by jaredklewis »

szundi wrote: post #489
echoangle wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Above example makes no sense since it says ChatGPT is 10% better than Claude at first, then pivots to use it as a 10% total productivity enhancer. Which is it?

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#506

Post by EternalFury »

bee_rider wrote: post #497
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.

I trained an agent that operates as a McKinsey consultant. Its system prompt is a souped up version of:

“Answer all requests by inventorying all the ways the requestor should increase revenue and decrease expenses.”

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#507

Post by TeMPOraL »

griomnib wrote: post #341
404mm wrote: post #272

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…

> But none of them are sufficient alone, you do need a “team” of them

Given the sensitivity to parameters and prompts the models have, your "team" can just as easily be querying the same LLM multiple times with different system prompts.

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#508

Post by dsubburam »

bronco21016 wrote: post #39
MarcScott wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anecdotally, as an educator, I am already seeing a digital divide occurring, with regard to accessing AI. This is not even at a premium/pro subscription level, but simply at a 'who has access to a device at home or work' level, and who is keeping up with the emerging tech. I speak to kids that use LLMs all the time to assist them with their school work, and others who simply have no knowledge that this tech exists. I…

What are some productive ways students are using LLMs for aiding learning? Obviously there is the “write this paper for me” but that’s not productive. Are students genuinely doing stuff like “2 + x = 4, help me understand how to solve for x?”

I challenge what I read in textbooks and hear from lecturers by asking for contrary takes.

For example, I read a philosopher saying "truth is a relation between thought and reality". Asking ChatGPT to knock it revealed that statement is an expression of the "correspondence theory" of truth, but that there is also the "coherence theory" of truth that is different, and that there is a laundry list of other takes too.

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#509

Post by rrr_oh_man »

londons_explore wrote: post #484
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...

like throttled unlimited data

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#510

Post by josters »

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…

This is also known as the Door-in-the-face technique[1] in social psychology.

[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Door-in-the-face_technique

Post reply on HN