Ok..?
A ChatGPT Pro subscription costs 38.6 months of income in low-income countries
71–80 of 107 posts
Re: A ChatGPT Pro subscription costs 38.6 months of income in low-income countries
#72One issue I have with the widely used metric of 'Productivity per hours worked' - if I have a second apt I rent out to Bob for $1000, I have a 'productivity' of $6.25 per hour 'worked', despite nobody producing anything and nobody working for any length of time.
But that's the same with GDP: if you and me are living on an uninhabited island and grow/catch all of our food for consumption, our GDP is $0. If however I rent out my bungalow to you and rent yours instead, and I sell you all my food and buy your food instead, somehow our GDP skyrockets.
That's false equivalence. GDP being gameable does not mean the metric has anything to do with how valuable the output of each individual worker is, yet the metric suggests the opposite - if you made a metric like 'Number of Nobel laureates per large bodies of water', that would imply the presence of large lakes somehow aids or hinders top-tier scientific research, which is obviously a false premise.
Re: A ChatGPT Pro subscription costs 38.6 months of income in low-income countries
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
But that's the same with GDP: if you and me are living on an uninhabited island and grow/catch all of our food for consumption, our GDP is $0. If however I rent out my bungalow to you and rent yours instead, and I sell you all my food and buy your food instead, somehow our GDP skyrockets.
That's false equivalence. GDP being gameable does not mean the metric has anything to do with how valuable the output of each individual worker is, yet the metric suggests the opposite - if you made a metric like 'Number of Nobel laureates per large bodies of water', that would imply the presence of large lakes somehow aids or hinders top-tier scientific research, which is obviously a false premise.
My only argument is that both metrics are gameable in a way.
> if you made a metric like 'Number of Nobel laureates per large bodies of water'
That's a strawman argument.
Re: A ChatGPT Pro subscription costs 38.6 months of income in low-income countries
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
The author is making a moral argument, not a practical (from Google’s perspective) one.
I feel like this is a huge problem with the progressive movement in the US. Morally sound arguments that rarely make practical or economic sense - and no, "tax the rich" doesn't get us there: https://freakonomics.com/podcast/ten-myths-about-the-u-s-tax...
[deleted]
Re: A ChatGPT Pro subscription costs 38.6 months of income in low-income countries
#75If 200 USD / month would replace a developer, then it would be a bargain.
If 2000 USD / month would replace a developer, then it would be a fair price.
Problem is that none of existing models are capable to replace a developer. They all need babysitting. And I am saying that as a probable customer who would actually pay something between 200-2000USD for AI junior developer which can actually work and understand what it is doing. Either those models will start doing what has been promised by tech CEOs, or AI winter is upon us.
Re: A ChatGPT Pro subscription costs 38.6 months of income in low-income countries
#76>I find this very troubling for two reasons. First, while Claude and OpenAI are new, Google has been around for a long time. It should have thought better about pricing so that the tool is within the reach of the developing world. Why? I don't see a practical argument for why Google would want to offer this service at a massive loss.
The author is making a moral argument, not a practical (from Google’s perspective) one.
The phrasing is making it sound like a business argument though. "[Google] should have thought better ..." sounds like "well it would be better for Google the company to do ..."
Re: A ChatGPT Pro subscription costs 38.6 months of income in low-income countries
#77Luckily, a ChatGPT Pro subscription is not mandatory. It's not like one can't live without it.
for now. Wait until you have to compete with those who do have it. It's like competing in a race with a ferrari without a race car. The same thing used to be said of the internet.
I mean, they just released their major version and it's not a Ferrari, it's marginally better than what they had on the market 3 years ago.
Re: A ChatGPT Pro subscription costs 38.6 months of income in low-income countries
#78>I find this very troubling for two reasons. First, while Claude and OpenAI are new, Google has been around for a long time. It should have thought better about pricing so that the tool is within the reach of the developing world. Why? I don't see a practical argument for why Google would want to offer this service at a massive loss.
The author is making a moral argument, not a practical (from Google’s perspective) one.
Why? We are not talking about access to safe drinking water, AI is the latest tech vanity / bubble. Some people have more direct life concerns like unstable governments or access to education than making a ghiblified version of their photo.
Re: A ChatGPT Pro subscription costs 38.6 months of income in low-income countries
#79Luckily, a ChatGPT Pro subscription is not mandatory. It's not like one can't live without it.
for now. Wait until you have to compete with those who do have it. It's like competing in a race with a ferrari without a race car. The same thing used to be said of the internet.
Why? Will you have access to it during an exam? During an interview? Can't you pass a calculus exam without it?
Re: A ChatGPT Pro subscription costs 38.6 months of income in low-income countries
#80This has the to be the dumbest blog and argumentation i've read the whole year... Corporations aren't charities. A ChatGPT Pro subscription isn't necessary for human survival in those countries. A ChatGPT Pro subscription isn't necessary for basic human needs.