41–50 of 132 posts
OpenAI today updated their Usage Policy to include the GPT Store: https://openai.com/policies/usage-policies > We want to make sure that GPTs in the GPT Store are appropriate for all users. For example, GPTs that contain profanity in their names or that depict or promote graphic violence are not allowed in our Store. We also don’t allow GPTs dedicated to fostering romantic companionship or performing regulated activi…
If you haven't see it already, there's Rabbit r1[0] which takes the "in the future there wouldn't be individual apps" approach and on the other hand OpenAI seems to adopt the "in the future, we will host all the apps" approach. I'm curious who will win this one but IMHO there's a value in having an individual well defined app even though I previously argued that in the future there wouldn't be individual apps. The va…
> In Q1 we will launch a GPT builder revenue program. As a first step, US builders will be paid based on user engagement with their GPTs. We'll provide details on the criteria for payments as we get closer. This doesn't inspire confidence, especially if you have a GPT that requires access to a different server that you have to host and pay for, which I think is the only way to do something genuinely useful beyond sha…
and based on how ChatGPT itself was built after seeing how customers were using their API, I'd be willing to bet that OpenAI will simply copy the most popular ones with an "official" version. Developers are going to act as free R&D for OpenAI again
I don't understand what makes these different. Are they using custom data sources, or is the only difference the starting prompt that the creator made to tall ChatGPT how to respond to answers?
Behavior: You can give it a detailed set of instructions to guide its answers.
Knowledge base: You can add your own company files for the AI to draw information from.
Capabilities: You can use either OpenAI's existing capabilities (like DALL·E, Browse with Bing, or Data Analysis) or your custom capabilities (other actions the AI can perform).
If you haven't see it already, there's Rabbit r1[0] which takes the "in the future there wouldn't be individual apps" approach and on the other hand OpenAI seems to adopt the "in the future, we will host all the apps" approach. I'm curious who will win this one but IMHO there's a value in having an individual well defined app even though I previously argued that in the future there wouldn't be individual apps. The va…
My experience putting together https://chat.openai.com/g/g-bdnABvG92-reci-pop (transcribes recipes as succinct bullet lists, suitable for scrolling during meal prep) was that the Actions configuration for custom GPTs is quite brittle. OpenAI has implemented controls to stop the model from adding hallucinated parameters to an action payload... but this results in user-facing failures. I initially worked around the use…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the announcement: > It’s been two months since we announced GPTs, and users have already created over 3 million custom versions of ChatGPT. That's a really low barrier, especially considering that only paying subscribers have had access
IMHO "barrier to entry" implies success and not mere existence. It's like barrier to entry into singing, everyone can sing but the barrier to entry into singing career is actually quite high. Very few things have true barrier to entry and its mostly about purchasing an equipment or license.
The "barrier to build ", as used by the initial post and in this context, is "barrier to put something in front of eyes of the customer".
With that barrier being low, it's supremely hard for customers to pick wheat from the chaff. Who's gonna bother going through 3 million offerings and figure out what's useful?
My experience putting together https://chat.openai.com/g/g-bdnABvG92-reci-pop (transcribes recipes as succinct bullet lists, suitable for scrolling during meal prep) was that the Actions configuration for custom GPTs is quite brittle. OpenAI has implemented controls to stop the model from adding hallucinated parameters to an action payload... but this results in user-facing failures. I initially worked around the use…
Agreed - plugins had the ability to see responses directly and I'm not sure why they removed this for actions, it's a big step down.
Everyone and their mama wants to build The platform on top of them, including them, but veering towards the SV default of "oh it must be too complex if 80% of users aren't using it within 90 days" seems wrong
I would do things like you suggest to make the system more understandable, creating a trust flywheel and encouraging tinkering, which you need anyway if you want to build The platform
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's actually not that low. GPTs allow external functions and the moment you want to do anything interesting you actually need to be able to build it. For example, if your GPT is going to design and host a webpage for you then you will need to be able to create a service that can talk with that gpt, take its input and deploy it. Other GPTs that don't require a hard skill might also turn not to be trivial due to promp…
From the announcement: > It’s been two months since we announced GPTs, and users have already created over 3 million custom versions of ChatGPT. That's a really low barrier, especially considering that only paying subscribers have had access