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

301–310 of 453 posts

Re: ChatGPT for Teams

#301

Post by px43 »

sholladay wrote: post #233

I want ChatGPT for Family. The free version gets a lot of use around here but the most powerful feature is the ability to search the web, which is only available to paid users. I pay $20/month for myself and I’d happily pay a bit more for the whole family, but not $20/month per person - it adds up. Family members end up asking to borrow my phone a lot to use it. Give me a 3-4 person plan that costs $30-$40/month. You…

I have a custom GPT for telling my 3 year old bedtime stories. It's super cute to listen to the two of them collaborate back and forth where my kid will add new characters (friends from school, or stuffed animals) and new wacky twists to their adventures, and the storyteller GPT will come up with a new revised version.

It would be pretty rad if she could just have the app on her tablet with a family plan. She doesn't use it quite enough to justify getting her own subscription, but especially if we could share GPTs across devices, so she gets the ones I make for her, but doesn't get flooded with my work or research related GPTs.

Re: ChatGPT for Teams

#302

Post by ParetoOptimal »

epups wrote: post #126
benreesman wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Keep in mind that modern quantitative approaches to LLM evaluation have been effectively co-designed with the rise of OpenAI, and folks like Ravenwolf routinely disagree with the leaderboards. There's also very little if any credible literature on what constitutes statistically significant on MMLU or whatever. There's such a massive vested interest from so many parties (the YC ecosystem is invested in Sam, MSFT is in…

> Keep in mind that modern quantitative approaches to LLM evaluation have been effectively co-designed with the rise of OpenAI, and folks like Ravenwolf routinely disagree with the leaderboards. Sorry but you're talking complete nonsense here. The benchmark by LMSys (chatbot arena) cannot be gamed, and Ravenwolf is a random-ass poster with no scientific rigor to his benchmarks.

Cannot be gamed? C'mon now... You could pay a bunch of people to vote for your model in the arena.

Re: ChatGPT for Teams

#303

Post by no_streams »

benreesman wrote: post #66

I’ve got my stuff rigged to hit mixtral-8x7, and dolphin locally, and 3.5-turbo, and the 4-series preview all with easy comparison in emacs and stuff, and in fairness the 4.5-preview is starting to show some edge on 8x7 that had been a toss-up even two weeks ago. I’m still on the mistral-medium waiting list. Until I realized Perplexity will give you a decent amount of Mistral Medium for free through their partnership…

I'm curious about your workflow including all of these, is it only for your curiousity? Do you switch between them for specific tasks, or even run them in parallel for some purpose?

Also, is anyone aware of a service that supplies API endpoints for dolphin? I'd love to experiment with it, but running locally exceeds my budget.

Re: ChatGPT for Teams

#304

Post by oceanplexian »

rsaz wrote: post #255
cameronh90 wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe in the AI Twittersphere it started with sama, but it’s been becoming common in Gen Z culture for a few years now. If you look up popular bands at the moment, you’ll find a decent chunk of them only use lowercase in their band and song names.

I’m in gen z and usually type in all lowercase on my phone because I have autocorrect turned off and capitalizing the letters would be more work. Generally though, the aesthetic has become more associated with girls, I suspect because of women popular among girls being early to/pioneering the trend (namely Emma Chamberlain’s all lowercase youtube video titles and Rupi Kaur’s poetry books being entirely lowercase)

E.E. Cummings has all these Gen-Z hipsters beat by about a century give or take.

Re: ChatGPT for Teams

#305

Post by boringg »

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,…

Real Ben >> GPT Ben. However if you are going to the wider world you problem need to self varnish a lot (i know i would have to). You are fine in here!

What you are alluding to is quite similar to the that “instagram face” that everyone pursues and self filters for except its more about your communication and thoughts. Also the argument that you need to reach a wider audience i dint think isn't necessary unless you want the wider audience to comment and engage.

The internet is the great homogenizer soon(ish) we will be uniform.

Re: ChatGPT for Teams

#306

Post by ParetoOptimal »

minimaxir wrote: post #12

A notable feature here is "no training on your business data or conversations" which really shouldn't have to be a feature. (requests using the ChatGPT API already aren't trained upon)

Does anyone really trust openai isn't training on their data given their views on copyright?

It would make more sense for them to just train on it anyway.

Re: ChatGPT for Teams

#308

Post by randomdata »

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.

Said chat platform explicitly calls itself "Microsoft Teams". You know that it is not being referred to because there is no mention of its name.

Re: ChatGPT for Teams

#309

Post by midasuni »

pests wrote: post #166
cald0s wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that's how headlines work

I agree, but why didn't the original article do it? Or did they see the potential for confusion and deliberately not? When a common word is a product / brand, how do you use that word in a title without bringing up associations with that product / brand? Isn't the guidelines to submit the title as-is, no editorializing?

You could argue that Microsoft’s claim on common words (Teams, Windows) is the problem here.

Re: ChatGPT for Teams

#310

Post by jasode »

diggan wrote: post #289
hmottestad wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also assumed that this was ChatGPT for MS Teams. The title that the webpage uses is "ChatGPT for teams" and I believe that HN tries to use the titles from the linked page verbatim.

The title on the submitted webpage is "ChatGPT Team", singular.

>The title on the submitted webpage is "ChatGPT Team", singular.

Your reply is adding more confusion.

The "ChatGPT Team" is the title of the webpage from a user comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38942936

(The capitalized "Team" is part of a Branded Product Name.)

The "ChatGPT for teams" (lowercase 't') is the actual original title of the submitted webpage for the whole thread: https://openai.com/chatgpt/team

(The lowercase "teams" is a generic noun to describe the intended users.)

Post reply on HN