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

ChatGPT Plus

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

521–530 of 1001 posts

Re: ChatGPT Plus

#521

Post by anhner »

somsak2 wrote: post #508
anhner wrote: post #505

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use my toothbrush every day but I wouldn't pay $20 per month for it. I use my keyboard everyday but I wouldn't pay $20 per month for it. In fact, I paid around $4 total for it, as paying more would bring significantly more diminishing returns. I use my phone every day and have used it for the past 5 years with no issue, it has brought me so much value and yet, if I draw the line, it didn't even reach $20 per month…

the cost of your phone plus the call/text/data plan is less than $20/month?

No, just the phone. I use the call/text/data plant so little since I'm mostly on wifi anyway, so I left that out.

Re: ChatGPT Plus

#522

Post by btown »

codetrotter wrote: post #410
shagie wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Use \S which is the opposite set of \s which avoids eating word boundaries too. \b(dog\S*)|(\S*cat)\b You could also use a \B instead of a \S though there are different meanings there.

It almost does the trick https://regex101.com/r/sbpy8s/1 But this matches for example dog.cat as one single word. But I would like that it matches separately dog and cat in this case. Likewise, I’d want for example dogapple-bananacat to be matched as two separate words dogapple and bananacat After a bit more reading online I thought that maybe the following regex would do what I want: \b(dog\p{L}*)|(\p{L}*cat)\b http…

After all, who needs wget when you have \wcat!

Re: ChatGPT Plus

#523

Post by flangola7 »

KaoruAoiShiho wrote: post #3

Is there never going to be a version with less restrictions and filters? That would really be worth paying for.

Why would they do that? That seems directly counter to any objective of AI safety alignment, which is easily the most important problem we need to solve before we start giving these things more capabilities.

Re: ChatGPT Plus

#524

Post by _tom_ »

erulabs wrote: post #395
DoesntMatter22 wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's a programmer. They re cheaper than scrooge. They'll write a tool themselves in 6 months rather than spend 10 dollars. Idk why but programmers are the cheapest people on earth in regards to programming tools. I bought Intellij idea for $400 like 12 years ago and got made fun of at work even though it made me substantially faster than eclipse.

This is partly because in English we literally lack the word required. Free is both “gratis” and “libre”. Software should be free, but software does not need to be free. The lack of distinction on this term plagues the English speaking world in more ways than frugal programmers. See: the entire political spectrum in the US

The industry has come up with a few phrases for this

"Free as in beer" you get something, you don't have to pay. "Free as in speech" you have the rights to do things, like modify source code.

and later

"Free as in puppies" As in you get it for free, but it's gonna cost you later. Most open source software is like this, you get it, but have to invest is using/mastering/maintaining it. Of course, you have to invest like this in paid, software as well.

Re: ChatGPT Plus

#525

Post by tpmx »

tinyhouse wrote: post #499
tpmx wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google has this really annoying habit of dumbing down their services sufficiently to make them work with like 80% of the population (guesstimate). Do you really think Google will create a consumer-facing version of ChatGPT that has the same power and expressibility? I very strongly doubt it. It's not in their DNA.

They have to do something or they will become obsolete. I'm sure they are working on it in full force.

Yeah, they'll do something, and it will be stupidly dumbed down.

Re: ChatGPT Plus

#526

Post by quacked »

version_five wrote: post #506
zaptrem wrote: post #462

I think a personal subscription model where ChatGPT Plus subscribers are given personal API access for use with third-party open source apps (e.g., Chrome extensions, Siri Shortcuts, VSCode extensions) would be extremely valuable and much more lucrative than selling to specific companies. OpenAI has the opportunity to become the next fundamental utility provider for society. In the same way everybody has a data plan…

I don't agree with you about how foundational this is, I think chatGPt (as a concept, not a given instantiaiton) is mostly a toy people will get bored with (and not a stepping stone to something more like AGI) But whether I'm wrong or not I'm very excited about the idea of a ground-up paid service like this that could potentially have a b2c business model based on people actually paying for it instead of being a prod…

I think you're wrong, many programmers already prefer ChatGPT over StackOverflow.

Re: ChatGPT Plus

#529

Post by rnd0 »

tenpies wrote: post #468
rnd0 wrote: post #456

>We’re launching a pilot subscription plan for ChatGPT, a conversational AI that can chat with you, answer follow-up questions, and challenge incorrect assumptions. No one wanted that last part, no one wants that last part, and anyway "incorrect" according to who? Would it fair to assume that the more you pay, the less it "challenges" your "incorrect assumptions"?

> No one wanted that last part, no one wants that last part, and anyway "incorrect" according to who? On the bright side, it means ChatGPT will never replace humans. Catering to a Democrat fantasy that is ever more diverging from reality, means ChatGPT becomes less like asking a library, and more like asking /r/politics.

> Catering to a Democrat fantasy that is ever more diverging from reality,

I disagree; I'm pretty sure that GOP folks with enough money (think tanks, etc) will have no problem obtaining access to GPT and getting the outcomes from it they want.

Same for repressive regimes such as Saudi Arabia, China, Russia, etc.

The ChatGPT bias is for the proles, the rubes, the marks lining up with twenty dollars in their hand.

Re: ChatGPT Plus

#530

Post by smeagull »

quacked wrote: post #526
version_five wrote: post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't agree with you about how foundational this is, I think chatGPt (as a concept, not a given instantiaiton) is mostly a toy people will get bored with (and not a stepping stone to something more like AGI) But whether I'm wrong or not I'm very excited about the idea of a ground-up paid service like this that could potentially have a b2c business model based on people actually paying for it instead of being a prod…

I think you're wrong, many programmers already prefer ChatGPT over StackOverflow.

Stack Overflow is an amazing tool to find solutions to problems that worked 5 to 10 years ago, while newer versions of those questions get closed for being duplicates.
Post reply on HN