151–160 of 1001 posts
[flagged]
Interesting to compare this $200 pricing with the recent launch of Amazon Nova, which has not-equivalent-but-impressive performance for 1/10th the cost per million tokens. (Or perhaps OpenAI "shipmas" will include a competing product in the next few days, hence Amazon released early?)
[flagged]
> but I have a feeling that part of the reason they're charging so much is to give people more confidence in the model Or each user doing an o1 model prompt is probably like, really expensive and they need to charge for it until they can get cost down? Anybody have estimates on what a single request into o1 costs on their end? Like GPU, memory, all the "thought" tokens?
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.
The intersection of problems I have where both have trouble is pretty small. If this closes the gap even more, that's great. That said, I'm curious to try this out -- the ways in which o1-preview fails are a bit different than prior gpt-line LLMs, and I'm curious how it will feel on the ground.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
$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.
Does it give unlimited API access though?
I wish I was working on the type of problems for which the pro model would be necessary.
Details of o1 Pro Mode here: https://openai.com/index/introducing-chatgpt-pro/
It does not say anything about real use cases. It performs better and "reason" better than o1-preview and o1. But I was expecting some real-life scenarios when it would be useful in a way no other model can do now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, wait a minute, when interviewing candidates, you're making them invest their valuable time talking to an AI interviewer, and not even disclosing to them that they aren't even talking to a real human? That seems highly unethical to me, yet not even slightly surprising. My question is, what variables are being optimized for here? It's certainly not about efficiently matching people with jobs, it seems to be more ab…
It sounds like a setup where applicants hire some third-party company to perhaps "represent the client" in the interview and that company hired a bunch of people to be the interviewee on their clients behalf. Presumably also neither the company nor the applicant disclose this arrangement to the hiring manager.