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

421–430 of 453 posts

Re: ChatGPT for Teams

#421

Post by cyanydeez »

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 guarantee you they aren't leaving money on the table. they're running the same techno capitalist playbook.

they want you hooked on apps, API, etc, before the real costs are brought in. they likely should be charging anywhere from 50-100$ depending on hours

Re: ChatGPT for Teams

#422

Post by drittich »

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,…

I think this is just in the short-term. In the long term GPTs will retain our personality while making the message more understandable - which I think is the most important thing. Although McLuhan would disagree. Benefits, though, might include AI making cross-cultural translation so you can converse with someone with a different language and very different experiences and still understand each other. I think that's good? Maybe?

Re: ChatGPT for Teams

#424

Post by wokwokwok »

theshackleford wrote: post #168
wokwokwok wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not a metric. That's a use case. Certainly, no one here is arguing that there are things openai refuses to allow, and given that the effectiveness of using GPT4 on them is literally zero , a sweet potato connected to a spring and keyboard will "beat" GPT-4, if that's your scoring metric. If you want a meaningful comparison you need tasks that both tools are capable of doing , and then see how effective they ar…

> If you want a meaningful comparison you need tasks that both tools are capable of doing, and then see how effective they are. The fact it’s incapable of simple requests that an alternative can is absolutely part of a worthwhile comparison.

You’re just twisting what “best” means to suit your bias.

That is not a measure of how sophisticated and capable a model is.

GPT4 is a more sophisticated, more capable mode than mistral.

If that doesn’t make it the “better” for you, that’s fine; but any attempt to argue about the capabilities of the models is misguided.

Restrictions placed on a model are an orthogonal concern to its capabilities.

…but sure, you can invent some benchmarks to score models on other criteria, which is entirely valid.

It’s perfectly fair to say that GPT4 doesn’t top all possible metrics… only the meaningful ones about model capabilities.

Re: ChatGPT for Teams

#425

Post by shikon7 »

groestl wrote: post #399
pyaamb wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Can't wait for my 5 year old to start a sentence with "However, it's important to note that ..." ^^

If he starts with “As an AI language model…” then you should really start to worry

Re: ChatGPT for Teams

#426

Post by sagarpatil »

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.

GPT-4-1106-preview aka turbo has 128k tokens. Are they saying GPT-4 (0613) with 32k is better than GPT-4 Turbo?

Re: ChatGPT for Teams

#428

Post by matheusmoreira »

judge2020 wrote: post #404
happytiger wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It should be opt out by default: not opt in.

Until people decide to boycott services where privacy is opt-in, nothing will change.

Maybe the EU should fine them like a billion dollars a month until it becomes opt-in.

Re: ChatGPT for Teams

#429

Post by matheusmoreira »

johnfn wrote: post #402
minimaxir wrote: post #12

A notable feature here is "no training on your business data or conversations" which really shouldn't have to be a feature. (requests using the ChatGPT API already aren't trained upon)

Google trains on all your searches. Why is OpenAI held to a higher standard?

Google should not be allowed to do that either.

Re: ChatGPT for Teams

#430

Post by goatlover »

weatherlite wrote: post #237
dizzydes wrote: post #232

OpenAI understand their tech lead isn't a sustainable moat, so are going for network effects. Similar to Slack Connect (shared channels).

I heard the no moat theory before and I don't get it. The open source models are about a year or two behind the latest ChatGPT in terms of quality. That means companies will always be willing to pay premium to use ChatGPT and not rely on open source. So even if/when Google and Apple (and perhaps Meta) catch up in terms of A.I quality, there's still so much money to be made for OpenAI. One interesting by product of la…

It was on researcher's opinion at a competing company, and everyone treated it as fact.
Post reply on HN