4 ms·
After reading this, it seems clear (for most users) that the paid REST api for GPT-3 is a good deal.
by Computeiful 5y ago
After reading this, it seems clear (for most users) that the paid REST api for GPT-3 is a good deal.
- krageon 5y agoThe GPT-3 API from OpenAI is only open for you if they approve of you. Anyone even remotely concerned with freedom (of software, of ideas) should not be using it.
- Rabrg 5y agoThat hasn't been true for a while now: https://openai.com/blog/api-no-waitlist/ https://openai.com/blog/api-no-waitlist/
- webmaven 5y ago> That hasn't been true for a while now: https://openai.com/blog/api-no-waitlist/ https://openai.com/blog/api-no-waitlist/ Sure, but you can substitute "approve of your use case" instead: https://beta.openai.com/docs/usage-guidelines/content-policy https://beta.openai.com/docs/usage-guidelines/content-policy
- teaearlgraycold 5y agoBy my math just the hosting cost for GPT-J’s TPU node puts it at about the same price per token as OpenAI’s Davinci. And that’s if you’re using it 100% of the time for a whole month. Adding in the cost of a server to manage a REST API and a proxy to forward completions requests to an available node and you’re definitely going to pay more than you would to OpenAI. Add on the personnel cost of now maintaining your own GPT-J cluster and writing your own software to handle the completions requests and you’re paying way WAY more than you would to OpenAI. All that subsidization from M$ is making its way to the customer. This is still something we’ll probably look into at work. But it won’t be a cost saving measure.