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

201–210 of 1001 posts

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#201

Post by xur17 »

015a wrote: post #175
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.

The math is never this clean, and no one has ever experienced this (though I'm sure its a justification that was floated at OAI HQ at least once).

It's never this clean, but it is direction-ally correct. If I make $300k / year, and I can tell that chatgpt already saves me hours or even days per month, $200 is a laughable amount. If I feel like pro is even slightly better, it's worth $200 just to know that I always have the best option available.

Heck, it's probably worth $200 even if I'm not confident it's better just in case it is.

For the same reason I don't start with the cheapest AI model when asking questions and then switch to the more expensive if it doesn't work. The more expensive one is cheap enough that it doesn't even matter, and $200 is cheap enough (for a certain subsection of users) that they'll just pay it to be sure they're using the best option.

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#202

Post by 015a »

xianshou wrote: post #96

$200 per month means it must be good enough at your job to replicate and replace a meaningful fraction of your total work. Valid? For coding, probably. For other purposes I remain on the fence.

The reality is more like: The frothy american economy over the past 20 years has created an unnaturally large number of individuals and organizations with high net worth who don't actually engage in productive output. A product like ChatGPT Pro can exist in this world because it being incapable of consistent, net-positive productive output isn't actually a barrier to being worth $200/month if consistent net-positive productive output isn't also demanded of the individual or organization it is augmenting.

The macroeconomic climate of the next ~ten years is going to hit some people and companies like a truck.

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#205

Post by ionwake »

Has ANYONE tried it!?!? Is it any good !?!?! A worthwhile improvement? I need a binary answer here on whether to get it or not, thanks!

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#206

Post by griomnib »

jerjerjer wrote: post #178
MuffinFlavored wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Is a "reasoning" model really different? Or is it just clever prompting (and feeding previous outputs) for an existing model? Possibly with some RLHF reasoning examples? OpenAI doesn't have a large enough database of reasoning texts to train a foundational LLM off it? I thought such a db simply does not exist as humans don't really write enough texts like this.

It’s clever marketing.

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#207

Post by jrflowers »

ActionHank wrote: post #180
jrflowers wrote: post #165

> It also includes o1 pro mode, a version of o1 that uses more compute to think harder I like that this kind of verifies that OpenAI can simply adjust how much compute a request gets and still say you’re getting the full power of whatever model they’re running. I wouldn’t be surprised if the amount of compute allocated to “pro mode” is more or less equivalent to what was the standard free allocation given to models b…

They are just feeding the sausage back into the machine over and over until it is more refined.

It is amazing that we are giving billions of dollars to a group of people that saw Human Centipede and thought “this is how we will cure cancer or make some engineering tasks easier or whatever”

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#208

Post by talldayo »

brookst wrote: post #190
yosito wrote: post #75

[flagged]

I’d like to see more evidence that it’s a scam than just your feelings. Any data there? I certainly don’t see why mere prediction can’t validate reasoning. Sure, it can’t do it perfectly all the time, but neither can people.

> I’d like to see more evidence that it’s a scam

Have you been introduced to their CEO yet? 5 minutes of Worldcoin research should assuage your curiosity.

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#209

Post by 015a »

xur17 wrote: post #201
015a wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The math is never this clean, and no one has ever experienced this (though I'm sure its a justification that was floated at OAI HQ at least once).

It's never this clean, but it is direction-ally correct. If I make $300k / year, and I can tell that chatgpt already saves me hours or even days per month, $200 is a laughable amount. If I feel like pro is even slightly better, it's worth $200 just to know that I always have the best option available. Heck, it's probably worth $200 even if I'm not confident it's better just in case it is. For the same reason I don't…

That's only true if your time is metered by the hour; and the vast majority of roles which find some benefit from AI, at this time, are not compensated hourly. This plan might be beneficial to e.g. CEO-types, but I question who at OpenAI thought it would be a good idea to lead their 12 days of hollowhype with this launch, then; unless this is the highest impact release they've got (one hopes it is not).

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#210

Post by vander_elst »

MP_1729 wrote: post #162
tedsanders wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, o1 is definitely not good enough to replace employees. The reason we're launching o1 pro is that we have a small slice of power users who want max usage and max intelligence, and this is just a way to supply that option without making them resort to annoying workarounds like buying 10 accounts and rotating through their rate limits. Really it's just an option for those who'd want it; definitely not trying to push…

My 3rd day intern still couldn't do a script o1-preview could do in less than 25 prompts. OBVIOUSLY a smart OAI employee wouldn't want the public to think they are already replacing high-level humans. And OBVIOUSLY OAI senior management will want to try to convince AI engineers that might have 2nd-guessings about their work that they aren't developing a replacement for human beings. But they are.

> 25 prompts

Interested to learn more, is that the usual break even point?

Post reply on HN