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

321–330 of 1001 posts

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#321

Post by windexh8er »

crazygringo wrote: post #273
shortrounddev2 wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Overcharging for a product to make it seem better than it really is has served apple well for decades

That's a tired trope that simply isn't true. Does Apple charge a premium? Of course. Do Apple products also tend to have better construction, greater reliability, consistent repair support, and hold their resale value better? Yes. The idea that people are buying Apple because of the Apple premium simply doesn't hold up to any scrutiny. It's demonstrably not a Verblen good.

> consistent repair support

Now that is a trope when you're talking about Apple. They may use more premium materials that and have a degree of improved construction leveraging those materials - but at the end of the day there are countless numbers of failure prone designs that Apple continued to ship for years even after knowing they existed.

I guess I don't follow the fact that the "Apple Premium" (whether real or otherwise) isn't a factor in a buyer decision. Are you saying Apple is a great lock-in system and that's why people continue to buy from them?

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#322

Post by tippytippytango »

“But it makes mistakes sometimes!” Cool bro, then don’t use it. Don’t bother spending any time thinking about how to create error correction processes, like any business does to check their employees. Yes, something that isn’t perfect is worth zero dollars. Just ignore this until AI is perfect, once it never makes mistakes then figure out how to use it. I’m sure you can add lots of value to AI usage when it’s perfect.

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#323

Post by airstrike »

015a wrote: post #202
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…

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

Who's to say the frothy American economy doesn't last another 50 years while the rest of the world keeps limping along?

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#324

Post by valval »

yosito wrote: post #122
apsec112 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What evidence or data, if you (hypothetically) saw it, do you think would disprove the thesis that "[LLMs] will ALWAYS be the wrong tool for the job"?

You're attempting to set goal posts for a logical argument, like we're talking about religion or politics, and you've skipped the part about mutually agreeing on definitions. Define what an LLM is, in technical terms, and you will have your answer about why it is not intelligent, and not capable of reasoning. It is a statistical language model that predicts the next token of a plausible response, one token at a time.…

If the cure for cancer arrived to us in the form of the most probable token being predicted one at a time, would your view on the matter change in any way?

In other words, do you have proof that this medium of information output is doomed to forever be useless in producing information that adds value to the world?

These are of course rhetorical questions that you nor anyone else can answer today, but you seem to have a weird sort of absolute position on this matter, as if a lot depended on your sentiment being correct.

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#325

Post by grogenaut »

gwervc wrote: post #244
crazygringo wrote: post #119

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.

> A con like that wouldn't last very long. That's not a problem. OpenAI need to get some cash from its product because the competition is intense from free models. Moreover, since they supposedly used most of the web content and pirated whatever else they could, improvements in training will likely be only incremental. All the while, after the wow effect passed, more people start to realize the flaw in generative AI.…

AI may be over hyped and it may have flaws (I think it is both)... but it may also be totally worth $200 / month to many people. My brother is getting way more value than that out of it for instance.

So the question is it worth $200/month and to how many people, not is it over hyped, or if it has flaws. And does that support the level of investment being placed into these tools.

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#326

Post by airstrike »

tedsanders wrote: post #83
freedomben wrote: post #30

The price feels outrageous, but I think the unsaid truth of this is that they think o1 is good enough to replace employees. For example, if it's really as good at coding as they say, I could see this being a point where some people decide that a team of 5 devs with o1 pro can do the work of 6 or 7 devs without o1 pro.

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…

> The reason we're launching o1 pro is that we have a small slice of power users who want max usage and max intelligence

I'd settle for knowing what level of usage and intelligence I'm getting instead of feeling gaslighted with models seemingly varying in capabilities depending on the time of day, number of days since release and whatnot

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#328

Post by portaouflop »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #51
freedomben wrote: post #30

The price feels outrageous, but I think the unsaid truth of this is that they think o1 is good enough to replace employees. For example, if it's really as good at coding as they say, I could see this being a point where some people decide that a team of 5 devs with o1 pro can do the work of 6 or 7 devs without o1 pro.

That'll work out nicely when you have 5 people learning nothing and just asking GPT to do everything and then you have a big terrible codebase that GPT can't effectively operate on, and a team that doesn't know how to do anything. Bullish

I think that would be a great outcome - more well paid work for everyone cleaning up the mess

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#329

Post by pentagrama »

The argument of more compute power for this plan can be true, but this is also a pricing tactic known as the decoy effect or anchoring. Here's how it works:

1. A company introduces a high-priced option (the "decoy"), often not intended to be the best value for most customers.

2. This premium option makes the other plans seem like better deals in comparison, nudging customers toward the one the company actually wants to sell.

In this case for Chat GPT is:

Option A: Basic Plan - Free

Option B: Plus Plan - $20/month

Option C: Pro Plan - $200/month

Even if the company has no intention of selling the Pro Plan, its presence makes the Plus Plan seem more reasonably priced and valuable.

While not inherently unethical, the decoy effect can be seen as manipulative if it exploits customers’ biases or lacks transparency about the true value of each plan.

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#330

Post by pvarangot »

MP_1729 wrote: post #147
griomnib wrote: post #84

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.

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.

That's also not how pricing works, it's about perceived incremental increases in how useful it is (marginal utility), not about the actual more money you make.
Post reply on HN