Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New models and developer products

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

501–510 of 561 posts

Re: New models and developer products

#501

Post by TeMPOraL »

thisgoesnowhere wrote: post #323
blibble wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN is quite notorious for that Dropbox comment I suspect that video is going to end up more notorious, it's even funnier given it's the VCs themselves

I'm firmly in the camp that in a vacuum that comment looks dumb but the thread was actually great. Those were valid concerns at the time and the market for non technical file storage like they were building was non existant. Perfectly rational to be skeptical and Drew answered all his questions with well thought out responses.

The infamous comment itself made sense in context, too.

Re: New models and developer products

#503

Post by drubio »

saliagato wrote: post #105

You can now [1] pay from $2 to $3 million to pretrain custom gpt-n model. This has gone unnoticed but seems really neat. Provided that a start-up has enough money spend on that, it would certainly give competitive advantage. [1] https://openai.com/form/custom-models Edit: forgot to put the link

If your an OpenAI end customer, you'll be fine pre-training gpt-n models for your business; if you're an OpenAI middleman pre-training gpt-n models for other customers, what makes you think OpenAI won't eventually bypass you ? Lookup startups built around APIs and platforms, for every success, there's a graveyard filled due to APIs and platforms changing the rules.

Re: New models and developer products

#504

Post by singularity2001 »

reissbaker wrote: post #487
torginus wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, what breakthrough feature did we see here? - Code interpreter, function calling were already possible on any sufficiently advanced LLM that could follow instructions well enough to output tokens in a rigidly parseable format, which could then be fed into a parser, and its output fed back to the LLM. It was clunky to do with online APIs like ChatGPT, but still eminently possible. - Custom chatbots were easy…

The most exciting announcements for me were: * GPT-4-128k. Sure, Claude exists, but it's closer to GPT-3.5 than 4 IMO. TBD how well 128k context works given that classic attention scales quadratically (so they're presumably using something else) but given how good OpenAI's models tend to be I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. * Pushed GPT-3.5 finetuning to 16k context (up from 4k when it was released t…

data analyst can now directly plot graphs in the conversation

Re: New models and developer products

#505

Post by hanselot »

extr wrote: post #433
anotherpaulg wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Related to the OpenAI announcement, I've been able to generate some preliminary code editing evaluations of the new GPT models. OpenAI is enforcing very low rate limits on the new GPT-4 model. I will update the results as quickly my rate limit allows. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38172621 Also, aider now supports these new models, including `gpt-4-1106-preview` with the massive 128k context window. https://gi…

Dude I love how passionate you are about this project. I see you in every GPT thread. Despite all this tech there are so few projects out there trying to make large-repo code editing/generation possible.

I think that's mostly because most people are skeptical about trusting people with IP.

If there was a way to prove that the data was not being funneled into openai's next models, sure, but where is the proof of that? A piece of paper that says you aren't allowed to do something, does not equate to proof of that thing not being done.

Personally I believe all code work should be Open Source by default, as that would ensure the lowest quality code gets filtered out and only the best code gets used for production, resulting in the most efficient solutions dominating (aka, less carbon emissions or children being abused or whatever the politicians say today).

So as long as IP exists, companies will continue to drive profit to the max at the expense of every possible resource that has not been regulated. Instead of this model, why not banish IP, make everything open all at once and have only the best, most efficient code running, thereby locating missing children faster, or emitting less carbon, or bombing terrorists better or w/e.

Re: New models and developer products

#506

Post by startages »

layoric wrote: post #299
swatcoder wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everybody's got their own calculus about how competitive their space is and what this tech can do for them, but some might be best off dancing around lock-in by being careful about what they use from OpenAI and how tightly they integrate with it. This is very early in the maturity cycle for this tech. The options that will be available for private inference and fine tuning, for cloud-gpu/timeshare inference and fine…

"What looks like squeezing value out of OpenAI today might look a lot like technical debt and frustrating lock-in a year from now." Just wanted to highlight this as such a great, concise way to look at the Buy vs Build with pretty much any cloud service, thanks!

Seems right to me. That's why it's good to build with extendability in mind to allow switching easily in the future if needed.

Re: New models and developer products

#507

Post by whywhywhywhy »

asaddhamani wrote: post #425
minimaxir wrote: post #4

Most of the products announced (and the price cuts) appear to be more about increasing lock-in to the OpenAI API platform, which is not surprising given increased competition in the space. The GPTs/GPT Agents and Assistants demos in particular showed that they are a black box within a black box within a black box that you can't port anywhere else. I'm mixed on the presentation and will need to read the fine print on…

Their products are incredible though. I’ve tried the alternatives and even Claude is not nearly as good as even ChatGPT. Claude gives an ethics lecture with every second reply, which costs me money each time and makes their product very difficult to (want to) embed.

Honestly the companies that completely ignore ethics are the only ones who are going to scoop up any market share outside of OpenAI.

Getting a chiding lecture every time you ask an AI to do something does absolutely nothing for the end user other than waste their time. "AI Safety" academics are memeing themselves out of the future of this tech and leaving the gate wide open for "unsafe" AI to flourish with this farcical behavior.

Re: New models and developer products

#508

Post by toyg »

asaddhamani wrote: post #474
ChatGTP wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are you using it for? I want to know what people actually use these things for damn it !

I'd built a bot to use ChatGPT from Telegram (this was before the ChatGPT API), and currently building a tool to help make writing easier ( https://www.penpersona.com ). This is the API. Apart from that, it's pretty much replaced 80% of my search engine usage, I can ask it to collate reviews for a product from reddit and other sites, get the critical reception of a book, etc. You don't have to go and read long posts…

> currently building a tool to help make writing easier

That's cool!

> it's pretty much replaced 80% of my search engine usage

That's not cool. That's how you end up relying on nonexisting sources or other hallucinations.

Re: New models and developer products

#509

Post by ethbr1 »

jprete wrote: post #409
ethbr1 wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Clauses in terms of service are routinely updated or removed. True, but that plays a bit differently in B2B land, because your customers also have legal teams and law firms on retainer.

No-one seems to have sued Unity over an even more egregious set of EULA changes - claiming that users retroactively owed money on games developed and published under totally different terms.

Afaik, they rolled the retroactive fee back, right?

And technically, that was a modification of the future EULA.

If you wanted to continue to use Unity, here was the pricing structure, which includes payments for previous installs.

You were welcome to walk away and refuse the new EULA.

Which is a big difference with historically collecting data, in violation of the then-EULA, and attempting to retroactively bless it via future EULA change.

Post reply on HN