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

511–520 of 1001 posts

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#511

Post by bloppe »

MP_1729 wrote: post #147
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.

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.

I love it when AI bros quantify AI's helpfulness like this

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#512

Post by dudus »

Someone1234 wrote: post #496

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…

The longer the context the more backtracking it needs to do. It gets exponentially more expensive. You can increase it a little, but not enough to solve the problem.

Instead you need to chunk your data and store it in a vector database so you can do semantic search and include only the bits that are most relevant in the context.

LLM is a cool tool. You need to build around it. OpenAI should start shipping these other components so people can build their solutions and make their money selling shovels.

Instead they want end user to pay them to use the LLM without any custom tooling around. I don't think that's a winning strategy.

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#513

Post by ionwake »

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…

sold. Ill buy it, thx for review.

Edit> Its good. Thanks again for ur review.

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#514

Post by mongol »

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…

Journalism is not only about writing. It is about sources, talking to people, being on the ground, connecting dots, asking the right questions. Journalists can certainly benefit from AI and good journalists will have jobs for a long time still.

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#515

Post by danpalmer »

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…

The problem is that OpenAI don't really have the enterprise market at all. Their APIs are closer in that many companies are using them to power features in other software, primarily Microsoft, but they're not the ones providing end user value to enterprises with APIs.

As for ChatGPT, it's a consumer tool, not an enterprise tool. It's not really integrated into an enterprises' existing toolset, it's not integrated into their authentication, it's not integrated into their internal permissions model, the IT department can't enforce any policies on how it's used. In almost all ways it doesn't look like enterprise IT.

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#516

Post by jgalt212 »

Mordisquitos wrote: post #453
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…

> 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!

delve?

Did ChatGPT write this comment for you?

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#517

Post by echoangle »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #503
echoangle wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Right, I should have put a "necessarily" in there.

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#518

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#519

Post by jpcom »

kristianp wrote: post #384
jpcom wrote: post #58

$20 a month is reasonable because a computer can do in an hour what a human can do in a month. Multiplying that by ten would suggest that the world is mostly made of Python and that the solution space for those programs has been "solved." GPT is still not good at writing Clojure and paying 10x more would not solve this problem for me.

Are there any functional languages it's good at?

Haskell, apparently has hundreds of millions of lines that GPT was trained on

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#520

Post by syndicatedjelly »

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?

My firm's advertised billing rate for my time is $175/hour as a Sr Software Engineer. I take home ~$80/hour, accounting for benefits and time off. If I freelanced I could presumably charge my firm's rate, or even more.

This is in a mid-COL city in the US, not a coastal tier 1 city with prime software talent that could charge even more.

Post reply on HN