731–740 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Writers love the em-dash though. It's a thing.
My 10th grade english teacher (2002, just as blogging was taking off) called it sloppy and I gotta agree with her. These days I see it as youtube punctuation, like jump cut editing for text.
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…
All of what you described can change wildly from model to model. Even across different versions of the same model. Maybe a database could be built with “tells” organized by model.
Automated by the LLMs themselves.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
Microsoft owns the customer relationship, owns the product experience, and in many ways owns the productionisation of a model into a useful feature. They also happen to own the datacenter side as well.
Because Microsoft is the whole wrapper around OpenAI, they can also negotiate. If they think they can get a better price from Anthropic, Google (in theory), or their own internally created models, then they can pressure OpenAI to reduce prices.
OpenAI doesn't get Microsoft's enterprise legitimacy, Microsoft keep that. OpenAI just gets preferential treatment as a supplier.
On the way up the hype curve it's the folks selling shovels that make all the money, but in a market of mature productionisation at scale, it's those closest to customers who make the money.
Great, so now OpenAI has opened the door to pricing people out of AI access. The o1-pro model in their charts is only ever so slightly better than the one I can get for $20 a month. To blur the lines of this they add in other features for $200 a month, but make no mistake, their best model is now 10x more expensive for 1% or so better results based on their charts. What's next? The best models will soon cost $500 a m…
Why doesn't Pro include longer context windows? I'm a Plus member, and the biggest limitation I am running into by far is the maximum length of a context window. I'm having context fall out of scope throughout the conversion or not being able to give it a large document that I can then interrogate. So if I go from paying $20/month for 32,000 tokens, to $200/month for Pro, I expect something more akin to Enterprise's…
Coincidentally I’ve been using it with xml files recently (iOS storyboard files), and it seems to do pretty well manipulating and refactoring elements as I interact with it.
$200/month = $2400/year
We (consumers/enterprises) are already accustomed to a baseline price. Their model quality will be caught up or exceeded by open-source in ~6 months. So if I find it difficult to justify paying $20/month, why should I even think about $200/month.
Probably the thought process was that we can package all the great things (text, voice, video, images) and experience. The problem is that very few people use everything. Most of the time, the use cases are limited. Someone wants to use for coding, while someone else (artist) wants to use for Sora. OpenAI had an opportunity to introduce a la carte pricing, and then go to bundling. My hypothesis is that they will have very few takers at $200 for the bundle.
Enterprises - did they interview enterprises enough to see if they need user licenses for the bundles? Maybe they will give it at 80% or 90% discount to drive adoption.
Disclosure: I am on Claude, Grok 2/X Pro, Cursor Personal, and Github Copilot enterprise. My ChatGPT monthly subscription expires in a week, and I will not renew for now and see the user vibes before deciding. I have limited brain power to multitask between so many models, and I will rather give a chance to Gemini Pro for 6 months.
I wonder who came up with the $200/month idea, and what was running in their mind. $200/month = $2400/year We (consumers/enterprises) are already accustomed to a baseline price. Their model quality will be caught up or exceeded by open-source in ~6 months. So if I find it difficult to justify paying $20/month, why should I even think about $200/month. Probably the thought process was that we can package all the great…
Expect more of this as they scramble to course-correct from losing billions every year, to hitting their 2029 target for profitability. That money's gotta come from somewhere. > Price hikes for the premium ChatGPT have long been rumored. By 2029, OpenAI expects it’ll charge $44 per month for ChatGPT Plus, according to reporting by The New York Times. I suspect a big part of why Sora still isn't available is because t…