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

431–440 of 453 posts

Re: ChatGPT for Teams

#431

Post by shiroiuma »

Zambyte wrote: post #362
ics wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Too much discussion about the Holy Roman Empire over dinner? People talk to get things of their mind sometimes, not the infinite pursuit of conversation.

My point was not that they should talk about the Holy Roman Empire with their family, but that they shouldn't share information with strangers that they wouldn't share with their family. If you don't want your family to know something, you shouldn't tell it to OpenAI either.

This is silly. It's not like OpenAI is going to find your family's contact info, then personally contact them and show them what you've been talking about with ChatGPT. It's just like another post here comparing this to writing a post on /r/relationshipadvice with very personal relationship details: the family members are extremely unlikely to ever see that post, the post is under a pseudonym (and probably a throwaway too), and the likelihood that someone is going to figure out the identity of the poster and seek out their family members to show the post to them is astronomical.

Re: ChatGPT for Teams

#432

Post by ringofchaos »

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 also had some good experience woth default free version of phind. I was facing a issue in a python framework, which turned out to be a bug. Phind was able to pinpoint the github discussion where the issue was raised and also suggested workaround code example based on the github issue. No other free AI tools were able to do this.

Re: ChatGPT for Teams

#433

Post by Terretta »

Roritharr wrote: post #374

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.

It's not better. It starts with "Call Us" so no matter what it includes, it's worse.

Re: ChatGPT for Teams

#434

Post by tscolari »

freedomben wrote: post #349
freediver wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

out of curiosity, do you cap the trial accounts anyhow? First time I'm trying Kagi, and it's been one minute+ and it is still haven't started showing "Results" (when using `!code`). Just in case you do cap, probably not the best approach if you want to attract people!

update: it actually timed out with no result/explanation.

Re: ChatGPT for Teams

#435

Post by uneoneuno »

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.

I've been playing around with the assistant stuff and adding !expert to my searches to see what the LLM spits out first as a quick check. I'd love if I could get my custom assistant to work - sounds like a lot of fun to be had there.

Re: ChatGPT for Teams

#436

Post by distances »

HanClinto wrote: post #403
idiotsecant wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. G…

I ran into this same issue. Finally took until Christmas break to have the mental space available. Switched to Firefox + Kagi, and very happy that I did.

I wasn't able to quickly find an answer: can you use it also in private browsing mode on Firefox? I basically only use private Firefox browsing both on mobile and desktop.

Re: ChatGPT for Teams

#437

Post by jollyllama »

shrx wrote: post #142

Could a moderator change the "Teams" in the title to lowercase (as it is in the article)? Capitalizing Teams misleadingly implies it's regarding Microsoft's chat platform.

Pervasive and baffling. I can't decide if lack of attention to name conflicts in marketing is the norm or if it's intentional.

Re: ChatGPT for Teams

#438

Post by hnaccount141 »

distances wrote: post #436
HanClinto wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I ran into this same issue. Finally took until Christmas break to have the mental space available. Switched to Firefox + Kagi, and very happy that I did.

I wasn't able to quickly find an answer: can you use it also in private browsing mode on Firefox? I basically only use private Firefox browsing both on mobile and desktop.

They give you a unique URL associated with your account that you can use without manually logging in. It does somewhat defeat the purpose of private browsing mode depending on what you're using it for though.

Re: ChatGPT for Teams

#439

Post by freedomben »

tscolari wrote: post #434
freedomben wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

out of curiosity, do you cap the trial accounts anyhow? First time I'm trying Kagi, and it's been one minute+ and it is still haven't started showing "Results" (when using `!code`). Just in case you do cap, probably not the best approach if you want to attract people! update: it actually timed out with no result/explanation.

Code is the one I actually haven't tried. In general though they do cap trials but it's by number of requests, and it will either allow you or not, so that sounds like a bug

Re: ChatGPT for Teams

#440

Post by euiq »

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,…

Your posts are my favorite thing about Hacker News, both because of the things you're saying and the way you're saying them; please don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
Post reply on HN