71–80 of 1001 posts
"Open"AI - If you pay to play. People in developing countries where USD200 feeds a family of four for a month clearly won't be able to afford it and are disadvantaged.
If the alternative is ChatGPT with native advertising built it... I'll take the subscription.
That would be one way to destroy all trust in the model: is the response authentic (in the context of an LLM guessing), or has it been manipulated by business clients to sanitise or suppress output relating to their concern? You know? Nestle throws a bit of cash towards OpenAPI and all of a sudden the LLM is unable to discuss the controversies they've been involved in. Just pretends they never happened or spins the r…
I am using more Claude.ai these days, but the limitations for paying accounts do apply to ChatGPT as well. I find it a terrible business practice to be completely opaque and vague about limits. Even worse, the limits seem to be dynamic and change all the time. I understand that there is a lot of usage happening, but most likely it means that the $20 per month is too cheap anyway, if an average user like myself can so…
Here are some things I've noticed about this, at least in the "free" tier web models since that's all I typically need.
* ChatGPT has never denied a response but I notice the output slows down during increased demand. I'd rather have a good quality response that takes longer than no response. After reaching the limit, the model quality is reduced and there's a message indicating when you can resume using the better model.
* Claude will pop-up messages like "due to unexpected demand..." and will either downgrade to Haiku or reject the request altogether. I've even observed Claude yanking responses back, it will be mid-way through a function and it just disappears and asks to try again later. Like ChatGPT, eventually there's a message about your quota freeing up at a later time.
* Copilot, at least the free tier found on Bing, at least tells you how many responses you can expect in the form of a "1/20" status text. I rarely use Copilot or Bing but it demonstrates it's totally possible to show this kind of status to the user - ChatGPT and Claude just prefer to slow down, drop model size, or reject the request.
It makes sense that the limits are dynamic though. The services likely have a somewhat fixed capacity but demand will ebb and flow, so it makes sense to expand/contact availability on free tiers and perhaps paid tiers as well.
The price feels outrageous, but I think the unsaid truth of this is that they think o1 is good enough to replace employees. For example, if it's really as good at coding as they say, I could see this being a point where some people decide that a team of 5 devs with o1 pro can do the work of 6 or 7 devs without o1 pro.
That'll work out nicely when you have 5 people learning nothing and just asking GPT to do everything and then you have a big terrible codebase that GPT can't effectively operate on, and a team that doesn't know how to do anything. Bullish
It'll be an object lesson in short-termism.
(and provide some job security, perhaps)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m watching some of this happening first and second hand, and have seen a lot of evidence of companies spending a ton of money on these, spinning up departments, buying companies, pivoting their entire company’s strategy to AI, et c, and zero of its meaningfully replacing employees. It takes very skilled people to use LLMs well, and the companies trying to turn 5 positions into 2 aren’t paying enough to reliably get…
> and the companies trying to turn 5 positions into 2 aren’t paying enough to reliably get and keep two people who are good at it. it's turning 5 positions into 7: 5 people to do what currently needs to get done, 2 to try to replace those 5 with AI and failing for several years.
The situation now is kinda like back when it was possible to be “good at Google” and lots of people, including in tech, weren’t. It’s possible to be good at LLMs, and not a lot of people are.
The price feels outrageous, but I think the unsaid truth of this is that they think o1 is good enough to replace employees. For example, if it's really as good at coding as they say, I could see this being a point where some people decide that a team of 5 devs with o1 pro can do the work of 6 or 7 devs without o1 pro.
That'll work out nicely when you have 5 people learning nothing and just asking GPT to do everything and then you have a big terrible codebase that GPT can't effectively operate on, and a team that doesn't know how to do anything. Bullish