Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

ChatGPT for Teams

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 453 posts

Re: ChatGPT for Teams

#291

Post by hackerlight »

weatherlite wrote: post #237
dizzydes wrote: post #232

OpenAI understand their tech lead isn't a sustainable moat, so are going for network effects. Similar to Slack Connect (shared channels).

I heard the no moat theory before and I don't get it. The open source models are about a year or two behind the latest ChatGPT in terms of quality. That means companies will always be willing to pay premium to use ChatGPT and not rely on open source. So even if/when Google and Apple (and perhaps Meta) catch up in terms of A.I quality, there's still so much money to be made for OpenAI. One interesting by product of la…

I think no moat vs moat is a false dichotomy. They have a moat (better researchers and data) and are about to make it even better (network effects).

Re: ChatGPT for Teams

#292

Post by zemvpferreira »

benreesman wrote: post #243
vincentrolfs wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I asked ChatGPT to rewrite the original post using your glossary, which worked well: I've set up my system to use several AI models: the open-source Mixtral-8x7, Dolphin (an uncensored version of Mixtral), GPT-3.5 Turbo (a cost-effective option from OpenAI), and the latest GPT-4 Turbo from OpenAI. I can easily compare their performances in Emacs. Lately, I've noticed that GPT-4 Turbo is starting to outperform Mixtral…

The GP did a great job summarizing the original post and defining a lot of cryptic jargon that I didn't anticipate would generate so much conversation, and I'd wager did it without a blind LLM shot (though these days even that is possible). I endorse that summary without reservation. And the above is substantially what I said, and undoubtedly would find a better reception with a larger audience. I'm troubled though,…

Porque no los dos? While I truly appreciate your OP and could grok it even though I don't know the tech, the summary and rewrites saved me a ton of googling. I hope one day we have a 'see vernacular/original' button for all thought and communication so people can choose what level to engage in without the author having to change their communication style. Translation for personal dialects, so to say.

Re: ChatGPT for Teams

#293

Post by phillipcarter »

dizzydes wrote: post #232

OpenAI understand their tech lead isn't a sustainable moat, so are going for network effects. Similar to Slack Connect (shared channels).

Yeah, this is something I've been saying as well. Their true "moat" is their network of people who know and understand how to know use their tech.

Re: ChatGPT for Teams

#294

Post by riffic »

shrx wrote: post #142

Could a moderator change the "Teams" in the title to lowercase (as it is in the article)? Capitalizing Teams misleadingly implies it's regarding Microsoft's chat platform.

maybe Microsoft shouldn't have overloaded a generic word as a brand then.

Re: ChatGPT for Teams

#295

Post by mwigdahl »

benreesman wrote: post #243
vincentrolfs wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I asked ChatGPT to rewrite the original post using your glossary, which worked well: I've set up my system to use several AI models: the open-source Mixtral-8x7, Dolphin (an uncensored version of Mixtral), GPT-3.5 Turbo (a cost-effective option from OpenAI), and the latest GPT-4 Turbo from OpenAI. I can easily compare their performances in Emacs. Lately, I've noticed that GPT-4 Turbo is starting to outperform Mixtral…

The GP did a great job summarizing the original post and defining a lot of cryptic jargon that I didn't anticipate would generate so much conversation, and I'd wager did it without a blind LLM shot (though these days even that is possible). I endorse that summary without reservation. And the above is substantially what I said, and undoubtedly would find a better reception with a larger audience. I'm troubled though,…

I think the only thing you really need to do is unpack your jargon so people who aren't exactly you can understand what you're saying. Even on this site, there are folks with all sorts of different experiences and cultural context, so shortcuts in phrasing don't always come across clearly.

For example, "in which case the world goes all Huxley really fast." "Huxley" apparently means something to you. Would it mean anything at all to someone who hasn't read any Aldous Huxley? As someone who _has_, I still had to think about it -- a lot. I assumed you're referring to a work of his literature rather than something he actually believed, as Huxley's beliefs about the world certainly had a place for the contrarian and the original.

Further, I assume you are referring to his most well-known work, _Brave New World_, rather than (for example) _Island_, so you're not saying that people would be eating a lot of psychedelic mushrooms and living together in tolerant peace and love.

I don't at all think you need to sound like GPT to be a successful communicator, but you will be more successful the more you consider your audience and avoid constructions that they're unlikely to be able to understand without research.

Re: ChatGPT for Teams

#296

Post by smeej »

cgeier wrote: post #257
benreesman wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The GP did a great job summarizing the original post and defining a lot of cryptic jargon that I didn't anticipate would generate so much conversation, and I'd wager did it without a blind LLM shot (though these days even that is possible). I endorse that summary without reservation. And the above is substantially what I said, and undoubtedly would find a better reception with a larger audience. I'm troubled though,…

I would have said there is no problem with your style (nothing brash/abrasive), but you used a lot of jargon, that people who are not very deep into LLMs (large language models) would not understand. Interests of hackernews visitors are very diverse, not everyone follows LLMs that closely.

This was my take exactly. I read the original and thought, "Wow, this sounds like really interesting stuff this poster us excited about. I wish I knew what the terms meant, though. I'll have to come back to this when I have more time and look up the terms."

I was pleasantly surprised to find a glossary immediately following, which tells me it wasn't the tone of the post, but the shorthand terminology that was unfamiliar to me that was my issue.

I think writing in "Ben's voice" is great. There are just going to be times when your audience needs a bit more context around your terminology, that's all.

Re: ChatGPT for Teams

#297

Post by bix6 »

hanspeter wrote: post #125
bix6 wrote: post #20

“No training on your business data or conversations” Does this mean they will still use your data for other non-training purposes?

Yes. They will use your data as input to the GPT model to deliver the reponse you have requested.

Appreciate the funny response but that is obviously not the intention of my question

Re: ChatGPT for Teams

#298

Post by bart_spoon »

benreesman wrote: post #243
vincentrolfs wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I asked ChatGPT to rewrite the original post using your glossary, which worked well: I've set up my system to use several AI models: the open-source Mixtral-8x7, Dolphin (an uncensored version of Mixtral), GPT-3.5 Turbo (a cost-effective option from OpenAI), and the latest GPT-4 Turbo from OpenAI. I can easily compare their performances in Emacs. Lately, I've noticed that GPT-4 Turbo is starting to outperform Mixtral…

The GP did a great job summarizing the original post and defining a lot of cryptic jargon that I didn't anticipate would generate so much conversation, and I'd wager did it without a blind LLM shot (though these days even that is possible). I endorse that summary without reservation. And the above is substantially what I said, and undoubtedly would find a better reception with a larger audience. I'm troubled though,…

People aren’t passing you through a filter because you are brash and undiplomatic and “unaligned”, it’s because your communication style is borderline incomprehensible.

Re: ChatGPT for Teams

#299

Post by ddano »

wholinator2 wrote: post #234
ddano wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a weird trend.

The phone only auto capitalizes the first letter of a sentence. If you end up changing it sometimes it doesn't get replaced with a capital. If you get frustrated with autocorrect features, often modern phones don't allow you to select which features to turn off and you're forced to turn everything off, at least that's how it was during the time i learned to type with the phone. I'm not gen z but I'd say it has a lot…

You can disable the option on phones to auto capitalize.

Again, my observation here is not that "TVs should stay grayscale" but that this lowercase movement is now being used to "fight the AI generated content" which I find pretty funny because it makes no sense. You can tell ChatGPT to write in lowercase.

It especially got traction after @sama's tweet that had no intention to associate it with non-GPT content, but just weirdly flexed that he types in lowercase.

Re: ChatGPT for Teams

#300

Post by fl7305 »

coldtea wrote: post #216
pferde wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

You keep using this word "incel". I don't think it means what you think it means. This is a classical joke about how nerds don't get romance/dating. People have been doing that since the time of Goethe. Not something about bitter men who can't get laid and hate on women for it (which would be the incel case).

A nerd finds a talking frog by a pond. The frog says, "Hey, I'm not really a frog. I'm a beautiful princess, and if you kiss me, I'll turn back into a princess, and I'll grant you one wish."

The nerd thinks for a moment, then puts the frog in his pocket and continues walking.

The frog says, "Aren't you going to kiss me and make a wish?"

The nerd replies, "Nah, I'd rather have a talking frog."

Post reply on HN