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

341–350 of 453 posts

Re: ChatGPT for Teams

#341

Post by jasode »

LordDragonfang wrote: post #334
jasode wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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/…

>"ChatGPT Team" is the title of the webpage from a user comment... "ChatGPT for teams" (lowercase 't') is the actual original title of the submitted webpage Sorry, I think you're the one adding confusion. "ChatGPT for teams" is not the title of the submitted webpage. It's the heading of the article on that page, but the actual title, as shown in the tab strip and defined in the html header, is "ChatGPT Team": view-so…

>It's the heading of the article on that page, but the actual title,

Yes, I understand that but 99% in this thread talking about "title" is the article's headline(title) that has the word "for" in it "ChatGPT for teams" and not the HTML tags ChatGPT Team or

In other words, people in this thread are not complaining about "ChatGPT Team" in the browser's tab title or confused by it. Instead, they're talking about the other title "ChatGPT for Teams" that was submitted and manually changed from lowercase 't' to uppercase 'T' and prominently visible at the top of this thread. That's the context of this meta discussion about confusing capitalization causing some readers to incorrectly assume the headline is about a new ChatGPT addon feature for MS Teams: (https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-teams/group-chat-s...)

The singular "Team" in product name "ChatGPT Team" doesn't cause the same confusion because Microsoft doesn't have a branded product called "Team". That's why citing "ChatGPT Team" ... does not help clarify things and just adds more confusion to this thread.

>Hacker New's code uses the html title element (which in this case is actually a meta element) to automatically title submissions.

Are you sure? In the past, HN commenters have been annoyed that the HN software does not extract and parse the HTML element automatically and defers too much to the titles that submitters manually type in which often leads to editorialization and/or confusion.

Re: ChatGPT for Teams

#342

Post by whycome »

siva7 wrote: post #238
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'm certain that they will soon release anything that promises more subscriptions. ChatGPT for Family, ChatGPT for Gov, and so on...

ChatGPT for Kids™

Re: ChatGPT for Teams

#343

Post by osigurdson »

hmottestad wrote: post #271
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 haven't found the web search feature particularly useful or helpful. Far too many sites are blocking the ChatGPT bot. I also find that ChatGPT isn't getting any better search results that I would if I searched for something myself. Quality of the results varies a lot too, and ChatGPT doesn't really seem to be able to distinguish between high quality content and not so high quality content. For software development…

I feel that LLMs have the potential to reorganize the web. Instead of being ad sponsored, raw, high quality data will be priced and aggregated.

Re: ChatGPT for Teams

#345

Post by krzyk »

px43 wrote: post #301
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…

Oh, how does your 3 year old interact with GPT?

BTW. I read once some person made automated generation of bed time stories (with childrens as the main characters) for his children using open AI API and speakers - I was quite amazed (not a thing I would do, but nice usage for gpt).

Re: ChatGPT for Teams

#346

Post by ren_engineer »

wand3r wrote: post #327

Adjacent question, leaving aside value proposition. Do companies pay for 1000 seats like this? I didn't realize slack is $5 a user a month. Do they discount this for bulk, or are companies paying $5k/month $60k/yearly? These subscriptions must really add up. On All In, they discussed the leverage from AI tools and they probably also meant open source, but one of the companies just rolled their own instance of a big m…

you'd be amazed at how many startups waste 100s of thousands(and millions) of dollars on buying seats for tools that barely anybody uses. Interest rate increases have made VC startups get a little smarter, but a few years ago it was really bad. Similar to how tons of startups burn huge amounts of money on AWS due to laziness

Re: ChatGPT for Teams

#347

Post by taylorhou »

px43 wrote: post #301
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…

ummm how do i get this? i've got a 5, 3, and 1 year old and would love this

Re: ChatGPT for Teams

#348

Post by pyaamb »

whycome wrote: post #342
siva7 wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm certain that they will soon release anything that promises more subscriptions. ChatGPT for Family, ChatGPT for Gov, and so on...

ChatGPT for Kids™

The more I think of it the more I realize how enormous an impact this could have

Re: ChatGPT for Teams

#349

Post by freedomben »

freediver wrote: post #326
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…

At Kagi we plan to offer this for $20/mo and 6 family members included. You get both paid search (much better than openai bing) + AI (gpt-3.5-turbo/claude-instant). If you need gpt-4 it will be an optional $15/mo upgrade per family member.

Nice, I'm looking forward to that! You guys have some pretty outstanding AI chops going. I've been really impressed!

Re: ChatGPT for Teams

#350

Post by freedomben »

hmottestad wrote: post #271
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 haven't found the web search feature particularly useful or helpful. Far too many sites are blocking the ChatGPT bot. I also find that ChatGPT isn't getting any better search results that I would if I searched for something myself. Quality of the results varies a lot too, and ChatGPT doesn't really seem to be able to distinguish between high quality content and not so high quality content. For software development…

Same experience. 90% of the time I ask it to summarize something, it can't because it's blocked. At least it has the decency to tell me that it's blocked rather than just failing (which is what Kagi does. Love Kagi, but that's a minor improvement they could make).

This is where I suspect Bard is going to be an absolute beast of a product. Ability to quickly and thoroughly consume a bunch of hits and find the best and summarize and such is something uniquely able for Google (and increasingly, Kagi)

Post reply on HN