301–310 of 1001 posts
Question, what stops openai from downgrading existing models so that you're pushed up the subscription tiers to ever more expensive models? I'd imagine they're currently losing a ton of money supplying everyone with decent models with a ton of compute behind them because they want us to become addicted to using them right? The fact that classic free web searching is becoming diluted by low quality AI content will mak…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If a model is good enough (I’m not saying this one is that level) I could imagine individuals and businesses paying 20,000 a month. If they’re answering questions at phd level (again, not saying this one is) then for a lot of areas this makes sense
Let me know when the models are actually, verifiably, this good. They're barely good enough to replace interns at this point.
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.
Question, what stops openai from downgrading existing models so that you're pushed up the subscription tiers to ever more expensive models? I'd imagine they're currently losing a ton of money supplying everyone with decent models with a ton of compute behind them because they want us to become addicted to using them right? The fact that classic free web searching is becoming diluted by low quality AI content will mak…
Question, what stops openai from downgrading existing models so that you're pushed up the subscription tiers to ever more expensive models? I'd imagine they're currently losing a ton of money supplying everyone with decent models with a ton of compute behind them because they want us to become addicted to using them right? The fact that classic free web searching is becoming diluted by low quality AI content will mak…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Whether LLM's help you at your work is extremely domain-dependent. I really doubt that, actually. The only thing that LLMs are truly good for is to create plausible-sounding text. Everything else, like generating facts, is outside of its main use case and known to frequently fail.
That opinion made sense two years ago. It's plain weird to still hold it today.
EDIT: Added links.
https://www.cio.com/article/3540579/devs-gaining-little-if-a...
https://web.archive.org/web/20241205204237/https://llmreport...
(Archive link because the llmreporter site seems to have an expired TLS certificate at the moment.)
No improvement to PR throughput or merge time, 41% more bugs, worse work-life balance...
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?)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In other words, it's a con. A con like that wouldn't last very long. This is for people who rely enough on ChatGPT Pro features that it becomes worth it. Whether they pay for it because they're freelance, or their employer does. Just because an LLM doesn't boost your productivity, doesn't mean it doesn't for people in other lines of work. Whether LLM's help you at your work is extremely domain-dependent.
I think this is probably right but so far it seems that the areas in which an LLM is most effective do fine with the lower power models. Example: the 4o or Claude are great for coding, summarizing and rewriting emails. So which domains require a slightly better model? I suppose if the error rate in code or summary goes down even 10%, it might be worth $180/month.