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

371–380 of 453 posts

Re: ChatGPT for Teams

#371

Post by fouc »

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.

is gpt-3.5-turbo/claude-instant better than the model that free tier of chatgpt uses? FWIW, from my testing dolphin-2.5-mixtral-8x7b was clearly better than free tier chatgpt.

Re: ChatGPT for Teams

#372

Post by codingdave »

hereme888 wrote: post #6

100 messages / 3 hrs, with a 32k context window. That's really cost effective and efficient for my use case! Does anyone know if this applies to voice conversations? This is me while I'm driving: upload big PDF -> talk to GPT: "Ok, read to me the study/book/article word for word." Good job OpenAI.

Why would you need AI to read a document word-for-word. That can be done already in various tools without needing to go through ChatGPT?

Re: ChatGPT for Teams

#373

Post by PoignardAzur »

aftoprokrustes wrote: post #226
coldtea wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Emil didn't, but I did (and yeah, it's useless): Mixtral-8x7: This appears to be a technical term, possibly referring to a software, framework, or technology. Its exact nature is unclear without additional context. Dolphin locally: "Dolphin" could refer to a software tool or framework. The term "locally" implies it is being run on a local machine or server rather than a remote or cloud-based environment. 3.5-turbo: T…

This is actually hilarious. It looks like a student who did not learn for the exam but still tries their best to scratch a point or two by filling the page with as many reasonnable sounding statements (a.k.a. "bullshit") as they can. Not that I expect more of a language model, no matter how "large".

> Not that I expect more of a language model, no matter how "large".

That's a weirdly dismissive statement. The fundamental problem is that a lot of these terms are from after the AI's cutoff point. It's perfectly able to handle terms like "Emacs", "RenTech" or "MSFT", and it can guess that "4070 Series" probably refers to a GPU.

ChatGPT in a few years will probably be perfectly able to produce the correct answers.

(Actually, ChatGPT consistently claims its current cutoff is April 2023, which should let it give a better answer, so I'm taking a few points off my explanation. But it still feels like the most probable one.)

Re: ChatGPT for Teams

#374

Post by Roritharr »

The way they purposefully made the Enterprise Plan so much better than the Teams plan is genius, the pressure on Enterprises to "just do the right thing" is pretty heavy here, I'd bet this will make them more than billion before the year is over.

Re: ChatGPT for Teams

#376

Post by jaaaisuujudjdn »

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,…

[dead]

Re: ChatGPT for Teams

#377

Post by idiotsecant »

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.

This is not a comment on the Kagi service, but more a comment on transitions in general. I have tried Kagi and I think it's great. I really want to use Kagi. I want to support Kagi. I have a mental stickynote that says 'start using Kagi on everything'. Every time I sit down to do some tasks it just falls to the bottom of the to-do pile because I feel like there's so many devices I now need to go through and update. Google really has a powerful advantage by bundling search in with the browser product. Isn't that what got microsoft into anti-trust trouble? How is it allowed?

Re: ChatGPT for Teams

#378

Post by michaelt »

Zambyte wrote: post #285
lhnz wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is probably correct but I'd prefer that family don't read the conversations I've had, as even if I'm not saying anything too private, it feels too intrusive (it'd be a bit like reading my inner thoughts).

It's interesting that you're so trusting of strangers knowing your inner thoughts (OpenAI) but not your family

How could I look my wife in the eye, or expect my kids to grow up happy, if they knew their dad doesn't know how to use a regex to detect emojis in a string?

Re: ChatGPT for Teams

#379

Post by jaaaisuujudjdn »

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,…

[dead]

Re: ChatGPT for Teams

#380

Post by [deleted] »

ParetoOptimal wrote: post #302
epups wrote: post #126

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. 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.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN