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

141–150 of 1001 posts

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#141

Post by vessenes »

yosito wrote: post #75

[flagged]

I mean this in what I hope will be taken in the most helpful way possible: you should update your thinking to at least imagine that intelligent thoughtful people see some value in ChatGPT. Or alternately that some of the people who see value in ChatGPT are intelligent and thoughtful. That is, aim for the more intelligent "Interesting, why do so many people like this? Where is it headed? Given that, what is worth doing now, and what's worth waiting on?" over the "This doesn't meet my standards in my domain, ergo people are getting scammed."

I'll pay $200 a month, no problem; right now o1-preview does the work for me of a ... somewhat distracted graduate student who needs checking, all for under $1 / day. It's slow for an LLM, but SUPER FAST for a grad student. If I can get a more rarely distracted graduate student that's better at coding for $7/day, well, that's worth a try. I can always cancel.

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#142

Post by lm28469 »

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…

> can kill any profit margins for the product as a whole.

Especially when the base line profit margin is negative to begin with

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#143

Post by htrp »

AlanYx wrote: post #126
yosito wrote: post #75

[flagged]

$200 a month is potentially a bargain since it comes with unlimited advanced voice. Via the API, $200 used to only get you 14 hours of advanced voice.

you'll be throttled and rate limited

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#144

Post by ghshephard »

yosito wrote: post #75

[flagged]

If you do a lot of work in an area that o1 is strong in - $200/month effectively rounds down to $0 - and a single good answer at the right time could justify that entire $200 in a single go.

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#147

Post by MP_1729 »

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.

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#148

Post by tokioyoyo »

MuffinFlavored wrote: post #117
nurettin wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or Anthropic will follow suit.

Am I wrong that Anthropic doesn't really have a match yet to ChatGPT's o1 model (a "reasoning" model?)

To my understanding, Anthropic realizes that they can’t compete in name recognition yet, so they have to overdeliver in terms of quality to win the war. It’s hard to beat the incumbent, especially when “chatgpt’ing” is basically a well understood verb.

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#149

Post by apsec112 »

yosito wrote: post #122
apsec112 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What evidence or data, if you (hypothetically) saw it, do you think would disprove the thesis that "[LLMs] will ALWAYS be the wrong tool for the job"?

You're attempting to set goal posts for a logical argument, like we're talking about religion or politics, and you've skipped the part about mutually agreeing on definitions. Define what an LLM is, in technical terms, and you will have your answer about why it is not intelligent, and not capable of reasoning. It is a statistical language model that predicts the next token of a plausible response, one token at a time.…

If we defined "LLM" as "any deep learning model which uses the GPT transformer architecture and is trained using autoregressive next-token prediction", and then we empirically observed that such a model proved the Riemann Hypothesis before any human mathematician, it would seem very silly to say that it was "not intelligent and not capable of reasoning" because of an a-priori logical argument. To be clear, I think that probably won't happen! But I think it's ultimately an empirical question, not a logical or philosophical one. (Unless there's some sort of actual mathematical proof that would set upper bounds on the capabilities of such a model, which would be extremely interesting if true! but I haven't seen one.)

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#150

Post by rahimnathwani »

griomnib wrote: post #93
nine_k wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Suppose an employee costs a business, say, $10k/mo; it's 50 subscriptions. Can giving access to the AI to, say, 40 employees improve their performance enough to avoid the need of hiring another employee? This does not sound outlandish to me, at least in certain industries.

That’s the wrong question. The only question is “is this price reflective of 10x performance over the competition?”. The answer is almost definitely no.

It doesn't have to be 10x.

Imagine you have two options:

A) A $20/month service which provides you with $100/month of value.

B) A $200/month service which provides you with $300/month of value.

A nets you $80, but B nets you $100. So you should pick B.

Post reply on HN