Live data from Hacker News

Introducing ChatGPT and Whisper APIs

openai.com

591–600 of 696 posts

Re: Introducing ChatGPT and Whisper APIs

#591

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait 8x total? For everyone at once?

Per instance (worker serving an API request) it requires 8x GPUs. I believe they have thousands of these instances and they scale them up with load. Because the model isn't dynamic (it doesn't learn) it is stateless and can be scaled elastically.

I expect some level of caching and even request bucketing by similarity is possible.

How many users come with the same prompt?

Re: Introducing ChatGPT and Whisper APIs

#592
post #562

I can think of a variety of uses for this, but they all involve confidential data. Their privacy policy doesn't mention what they do with the prompts/data we send to the API, but I presume It's reviewed and worked into the model.

On the page under Developer Focus it says:

> Data submitted through the API is no longer used for service improvements (including model training) unless the organization opts in

Re: Introducing ChatGPT and Whisper APIs

#593

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are you using it? In my experience asking factual questions lead to answers so inaccurate that you might as well not bother. Are you prompting it differently to me, or do you have some strategy to filter out the BS?

I dunno what to say, but I’m also someone who very rarely gets factually incorrect data aside from numbers, dates and quotes. I make a point to ask for a completion that I know won’t depend on an exact factoid. If I do need an exact factoid, I have a tool I made myself based on this approach: https://github.com/williamcotton/empirical-philosophy/blob/m...

This is advanced stuff. Thank you for writing it down.

Re: Introducing ChatGPT and Whisper APIs

#594

We've been struggling with costs because our application chains together multiple calls to GPT to generate the output we want, and it was starting to be ~$0.08 per call which obviously isn't feasible for high volume applications. This just made our business way more viable overnight lmao

What business are you building?

Re: Introducing ChatGPT and Whisper APIs

#595

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am scared for all people working service jobs. Why? Because they're no longer doomed to eke out a meaningless existence doing a robot's job badly?

It’s better than having no job isn’t it?

The same things were said during the industrial revolution, or the internet revolution. Guess what happened? Labor market adapted.

Re: Introducing ChatGPT and Whisper APIs

#596
post #548

> It is priced at $0.002 per 1k tokens, which is 10x cheaper than our existing GPT-3.5 models. This is a massive, massive deal. For context, the reason GPT-3 apps took off over the past few months before ChatGPT went viral is because a) text-davinci-003 was released and was a significant performance increase and b) the cost was cut from $0.06/1k tokens to $0.02/1k tokens, which made consumer applications feasible wit…

we make a little money on it!

Good! And welcome back (after keeping your promise to dang for ~611 days [0] (and counting)) :)

If you have time to elaborate on how you make a little money on it at some point, I’m sure lots of people here would love to hear more details and thoughts on that!

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27680498

Re: Introducing ChatGPT and Whisper APIs

#597

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For English only: This is so wrong! I actually didn't find that much significant improvement between Medium to Large. In many cases Medium was actually better for English than large was. Where Large really excels in my experience is with super noisy or distorted audio. Same thing with Small to Medium. There's no much difference in text quality. For good quality audio, Small is all you need. Medium is not much more ac…

Last time I used it was last week ago, when I was comparing it to a docker install of Whisper/torch. Then again, I'm using it on very noisy audio recorded with a lavalier microphone while riding a bike. For transcription tests of recordings from an answering machine medium was more than enough, not sure about small. Also, for the recordings during a bike ride, sometimes medium is better than large. All this was used…

Transcript of 20230302 170602.m4a (at 2023-03-02 1711.02).txt

   Hey friend, your use case sounds really interesting.
   Actually that's why I created this app initially.
   I really love riding around on my bike in the city
   and doing voice memo debriefs about whatever.
   I also like to do it walking around outside.
   And as you say, the trouble with that is wind distortion.
   Full stop.
   On a day where it's not too windy, it's not too bad.
   These models can totally pull the text from it.
   But the more distortion you have,
   the more of a disaster it is.
   And I don't know anything about the multilingual case,
   but for English, I definitely find that
   small is more than enough if you have good quality audio.
   Medium, you might wanna use it
   if there's some kind of distortion
   that's causing errors in the small.
   But if you have really good quality audio,
   even tiny is enough.
   I mean, it won't get some sort of rare words.
   So small is basically good enough for English anyway.
   Aligning with what you said,
   I remember seeing in the whisper paper
   that the performance actually decreases,
   the word error rate increases from the medium
   to the large model in the multilingual case,
   which is kind of interesting.
   So basically medium, I think, is all you really need.
   I think doing large, running large locally
   is probably a waste of time.
   But this doesn't apply to the OpenAI API case
   because they're running their own sort of special model.
   It's very fast.
   Plus they're kind of going to be retraining it
   so continuing to improve it over time.
   So obviously there's that, which is cool.
   I think basically I did extensive research
   and experiment with this,
   with trying to clean up audio for the transcription.
   And there's basically no way to do it.
   Like if you have a medium to bad level of noise
   that the transcription models can still work with,
   you're fine.
   Just go with that.
   But in that case,
   there's no point actually trying to denoise the sound first.
   That just seems to reduce the signal
   and it actually increases the word error rate.
   So just give them the raw distorted, windy audio
   and the models will do the best they can.
   You can't actually improve it, I found.
   I tried all kinds of different ways to process it
   and none of it actually improved it,
   including like the best possible denoiser I could find,
   which is the Facebook research denoiser.
   So my conclusion was that, okay,
   I found a sort of a fundamental physical limit
   and I think using denoising is really only good for humans.
   Like if you want to listen to the audio again,
   you don't want to hear all that wind probably.
   And for medium to bad,
   but not extreme levels of wind distortion
   or other kinds of noise distortion,
   you can use a denoiser like the Facebook research one
   and that will totally or nearly totally
   kind of reduce all that noise.
   But I basically decided that the only way
   to kind of get better quality audio
   or to get better quality transcripts,
   if you're doing it outside on a windy day,
   is not to go with software enhancement
   because it doesn't do anything, it doesn't achieve anything.
   I tried everything possible
   and nothing produced results in the extreme distortion case.
   So what I decided is that's basically a limit,
   physical limit and so the best way to do it I think
   is to change your microphone setup,
   have some sort of baffle around it,
   maybe one of those little microphones
   that can clip close to your throat or,
   I don't know, I'm no expert,
   but I think basically you can find a way
   to get better quality, less distorted audio
   outside by changing the microphone setup,
   adding one of those wind baffles or something.
   And I think that's basically all you can do essentially.
   And then once you have reduced
   a lot of that noise distortion,
   even if the resulting audio is still distorted,
   if it's not too bad, the models can be okay with it.

End of Transcript (created with WisprNote)

Re: Introducing ChatGPT and Whisper APIs

#598

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just watched a video that convincingly showed that it is energy and energy alone that determines the production growth of humanity. Until the day AI can "generate" stuff (you know, something out of nothing) it can only at best streamline existing production, which is entirely capped by energy limits. We may drown in oceans of audio, video, novels, poems, films, porn, blue prints, chemical formulas, etc. dreamed up…

Couldn't the AI invent fusion?

[dead]

Re: Introducing ChatGPT and Whisper APIs

#599
post #47

> It is priced at $0.002 per 1k tokens, which is 10x cheaper than our existing GPT-3.5 models. This is a massive, massive deal. For context, the reason GPT-3 apps took off over the past few months before ChatGPT went viral is because a) text-davinci-003 was released and was a significant performance increase and b) the cost was cut from $0.06/1k tokens to $0.02/1k tokens, which made consumer applications feasible wit…

It is so massive that I can't help but think about what happened with Google Maps API a few years ago where they had extremely low pricing for years then hiked the price by 1400% once enough people were locked into applications based on that API.

Obviously, that's business 101. Consumers should consider that ultimately all these cheap too-good-to-be-true offers cost them more than if they initially paid a bit more, but had more long term competition in the market. Amazon was the same way, they lost money for years but now have a quasi monopoly in many countries. There's a general trend towards such ventures supported by backers with deep pockets. And so the few extremely wealthy people get richer and richer.

Re: Introducing ChatGPT and Whisper APIs

#600

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2001.08361.pdf . See the C_forward formula approxiamtion.

Thank you. Though it isn't quite clear to me whether the additive part is negligible?

From eq 2.2, additive part is usually in few 10s of millions. So, for N > 1B, approximation should be good but it doesn't work. For example, GPT3 inference flops is actually 3.4E+18 so the ratio is 19,000 not 2.
Post reply on HN