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

ChatGPT Pro

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

621–630 of 1001 posts

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#621

Post by vessenes »

pc86 wrote: post #498
vessenes wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, tried it out. Early indications - it feels a bit more concise, thank god, certainly more concise than 4o -- it's s l o w. Getting over 1m times to parse codebases. There's some sort of caching going on though, follow up queries are a bit faster (30-50s). I note that this is still superhuman speeds, but it's not writing at the speed Groqchat can output Llama 3.1 8b, that is for sure. Code looks really clean. I'm…

When you say "parse codebases" is this uploading a couple thousand lines in a few different files? Or pasting in 75 lines into the chat box? Or something else?

$ find web -type f \( -name '.go' -o -name '.tsx' \) | tar -cf code.tar -T; cat code.tar | pbcopy

Then I paste it in and say "can you spot any bugs in the API usage? Write out a list of tasks for a senior engineer to get the codebase in basically perfect shape," or something along those lines.

Alternately: "write a go module to support X feature, and implement the react typescript UI side as well. Use the existing styles in the tsx files you find; follow these coding guidelines, etc. etc."

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#622

Post by CreRecombinase »

danpalmer wrote: post #515
fudged71 wrote: post #443

OpenAI is racing against two clocks: the commoditization clock (how quickly open-source alternatives catch up) and the monetization clock (their need to generate substantial revenue to justify their valuation). The ultimate success of this strategy depends on what we might call the enterprise AI adoption curve - whether large organizations will prioritize the kind of integrated, reliable, and "safe" AI solutions Open…

The problem is that OpenAI don't really have the enterprise market at all. Their APIs are closer in that many companies are using them to power features in other software, primarily Microsoft, but they're not the ones providing end user value to enterprises with APIs. As for ChatGPT, it's a consumer tool, not an enterprise tool. It's not really integrated into an enterprises' existing toolset, it's not integrated int…

This is what's so brilliant about the Microsoft "partnership". OpenAI gets the Microsoft enterprise legitimacy, meanwhile Microsoft can build interfaces on top of ChatGPT that they can swap out later for whatever they want when it suits them

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#623

Post by taneq »

jgalt212 wrote: post #516
Mordisquitos wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Aside from favoring the long em-dash (—) which isn't on most keyboards Interesting! I intentionally edit my keyboard layout to include the em-dash, as I enjoy using it out of sheer pomposity—I should undoubtedly delve into the extent to which my own comments have been used to train GPT models!

delve? Did ChatGPT write this comment for you?

Some of us are just greedy and deep, okay?

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#624

Post by dangdetector »

Atotalnoob wrote: post #425
A_D_E_P_T wrote: post #407

I just bought a pro subscription. First impressions: The new o1-Pro model is an insanely good writer. Aside from favoring the long em-dash (—) which isn't on most keyboards, it has none of the quirks and tells of old GPT-4/4o/o1. It managed to totally fool every "AI writing detector" I ran it through. It can handle unusually long prompts. It appears to be very good at complex data analysis. I need to put it through i…

AI writing detectors are snake oil

Doubtful AI writing is obvious as hell.

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#625

Post by j45 »

dr_kiszonka wrote: post #592
j45 wrote: post #567

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a $200/month pro level is successful it could open the door to a $2000/month segment, and the $20,000/month segment will appear and the segregation of getting ahead with AI will begin.

This is a significant concern for me too.

It's important to become early users of everything while AI is heavily subsidized.

Over time, using open source model as well will get more done per dollar of compute and hopefully the gap will remain close.

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#626

Post by CharlieDigital »

spacemanspiff01 wrote: post #610
CharlieDigital wrote: post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Startup I'm at has generated a LOT of content using LLMs and once you've reviewed enough of the output, you can easily see specific patterns in the output. Some words/phrases that, by default, it overuses: "dive into", "delve into", "the world of", and others. You correct it with instructions, but it will then find synonyms so there is also a structural pattern to the output that it favors by default. For example, if…

I always assumed that they were snake oil because the training objective is to get a model that writes like a human. AI detectors by definition are showing what does not sound like a human, so presumably people will train the models against the detectors until they no longer provide any signal.

The thing is, the LLM has a flaw: it is still fundamentally biased towards frequency.

AI detectors generally can take advantage of this and look for abnormal patterns in frequencies of specific words, phrases, or even specific grammatical constructs because the LLM -- by default -- is biased that way.

I'm not saying this is easy and certainly, LLMs can be tuned in many ways via instructions, context, and fine-tuning to mask this.

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#628

Post by onlyrealcuzzo »

aucisson_masque wrote: post #617
A_D_E_P_T wrote: post #407

I just bought a pro subscription. First impressions: The new o1-Pro model is an insanely good writer. Aside from favoring the long em-dash (—) which isn't on most keyboards, it has none of the quirks and tells of old GPT-4/4o/o1. It managed to totally fool every "AI writing detector" I ran it through. It can handle unusually long prompts. It appears to be very good at complex data analysis. I need to put it through i…

> It managed to totally fool every "AI writing detector" I ran it through. For now, as ai power increase, ai powered ai writing detection tool also gets better.

It's also because it's brand new.

Give it a few weeks for them to classify its outputs, and they won't have a problem.

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#629

Post by solarkraft »

A_D_E_P_T wrote: post #444
Atotalnoob wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AI writing detectors are snake oil

Yeah but they "detect" the characteristic AI style: The limited way it structures sentences, the way it lays out arguments, the way it tends to close with an "in conclusion" paragraph, certain word choices, etc. o1-Pro doesn't do any of that. It writes like a human. Damnit. It's too good. It just saved me ~6 hours in drafting a complicated and bespoke legal document. Before you ask: I know what I'm doing, and it did…

> Homework is over. Journalism is over. A large slice of the legal profession is over. For real this time.

It just replaces human slop with automated slop. It doesn't automate finding hidden things out just yet, just automates blogspam.

Re: ChatGPT Pro

#630

Post by astrange »

lenerdenator wrote: post #59
kilroy123 wrote: post #14

I do wonder what effect this will have on furthering the divide between the "rich West" and the rest of the world. If everyone in the West has powerful AI and Agents to automate everything. Simply because we can afford it, but the rest of the world doesn't have access to it. What will that mean for everyone left behind?

Don't you worry; the "rich West" will have plenty of disenfranchised people out of work because of this sort of thing. Now, whether the labor provided by the AI will be as high-quality as that provided by a human when placed in an actual business environment will be up in the air. Probably not, but adoption will be pushed by the sunk cost fallacy.

Productivity improvements (such as automation) increase employment.

The decreased employment case is when your competitors get the productivity and you don't, because you go out of business.

Post reply on HN