381–390 of 1001 posts
If one makes $150 an hour and it saves them 1.25 hours a month, then they break even. To me, it's just a non-deterministic calculator for words. If it getting things wrong, then don't use it for those things. If you can't find things that it gets right, then it's not useful to you. That doesn't mean those cases don't exist.
Serious question: Who earns (other than C-level) $150 an hour in a sane (non-US) world?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have several local models I hit up first (Mixtral, Llama), if I don’t like the results then I’ll give same prompt to Claude and GPT. Overall though it’s really just for reference and/or telling me about some standard library function I didn’t know of. Somewhat counterintuitively I spend way more time reading language documentation than I used to, as the LLM is mainly useful in pointing me to language features. Afte…
What model sizes do you run locally? Anything that would work on a 16GB M1?
$20 a month is reasonable because a computer can do in an hour what a human can do in a month. Multiplying that by ten would suggest that the world is mostly made of Python and that the solution space for those programs has been "solved." GPT is still not good at writing Clojure and paying 10x more would not solve this problem for me.
I lived on 200$ monthly salary for 1.6 years. I guess AI will be slowely priced out from 3rd world countries.
Any AI product sold for a price that's affordable on a third-world salary is being heavily subsidized. These models are insanely expensive to train, guzzle electricity to the point that tech companies are investing in their own power plants to keep them running, and are developed by highly sought-after engineers being paid millions of dollars a year. $20/month was always bound to be an intro offer unless they figured…
Actually, OpenAI brags that they have done this repeatedly.
$200 per month feels like a lot of a consumer subscription service (only thing I can think of in this range are some cable TV packages). Part of me wonders if this price is actually much more in line with actual costs (compared to the non-pro subscription)
This anti-cable-cutting maneuver doesn't bode well for any hopes of future models maintaining same level of improvements (otherwise they'd make GPT 5 and 6 more expensive). Pivoting to AIaaS packages is definitely a pre-emptive strike against commodification, and a harbinger of plateauing model improvements.
> ChatGPT Pro, a $200 monthly plan oof, I love using o1 but I’m immediately priced out (I’m probably not the target audience either) > provides a way for researchers, engineers, and other individuals who use research-grade intelligence I’d love to see some examples of the workflows of these users
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…
But, then again, how companies going to get senior employees if the world stops producing juniors?