13 ms·

$20 seems reasonable. I wonder how are they going to deal with "unreasonable intensive usage" aka people/companies offering "AI" in their products when in real

$20 seems reasonable. I wonder how are they going to deal with "unreasonable intensive usage" aka people/companies offering "AI" in their products when in reality they just act as a proxy between people paying them ( sometimes a lot of money ) and OpenAI.

kerpotgh 4y ago
It would be relatively easy. Restrict number of queries to something like 1 req/sec.
SeanAnderson 4y ago
Yeah it's interesting how their pricing model for existing APIs isn't subscription-based (https://openai.com/api/pricing/ https://openai.com/api/pricing/) I wonder why they diverged here?
- wahnfrieden 4y ago
  b2c vs b2b pricing
- drusepth 4y ago
  I'd hazard a guess that they're gonna start cracking down hard on unofficial API usage, and restrict the subscription to just their web UI. The fact that they're also offering a ChatGPT API soon seems to reinforce that duality.
  - Acen 4y ago
    I'd say it depends on how much they're willing to dive into "growth" mode for the company. If they're willing to spend those Microsoft dollars on product usage being embed everywhere, then sacrificing some short-term monetary gain for businesses that are built around your product would be valuable.
- shagie 4y ago
  The approach on how you consume tokens. The APIs are stateless and have a "this is how many tokens you send", "this is how many tokens you asked for" - and thus the person making the requests can control the rate of consumption there. Unless you're being extremely inefficient or using it as part of some other service that has a significant number of requests (in which case ChatGPT isn't appropriate) then this is likely to be less expensive for simple queries. With ChatGPT you don't have insight into the number of tokens created or the number that are used in the background for maintaining state within a session. Trying to limit a person by tokens midway could have a negative impact on the product. So, estimate the amount of compute a person uses in a month and then base it on that.
webstrand 4y ago
$20 puts it way out of my price range. It's useful, but when I've been averaging around twenty queries a day and somewhat frequently get back hallucinated responses, it's not worth that price. I wish there was a pay-as-you-go or a lower tier offering.
- m00x 4y ago
  You'll still have access to the general availability version.
  - webstrand 4y ago
    I'd like to pay for my usage. It's just that price is too high for my own limited usage. Not getting kicked into the waiting room for an hour every 2 queries is worth something to me.
    - cmeacham98 4y ago
      What price do you think would be "worth it"? With your existing usage, $20/month would be $0.03-$0.04 per query, which seems pretty reasonable?
      - webstrand 4y ago
        To be clear, I'm counting "every time I press submit" as a query. 3-4c to tell it "Your answer is clearly wrong because X, and Y" isn't very enticing. Around $10/mo would be far more palatable, I don't mind if my usage is capped. I simply do not get $20/mo worth of value back out of it at this point. That's basically the price of 1 book/mo, and I'd get more value out of that.
- jeremyjh 4y ago
  So you are doing something like 400 queries a month and the aggregate value of all those responses is less than $20 to you? I've got to ask, why bother querying it at all?
kokanee 4y ago
$20 is the very first price tier introduced at the very outset of what could be one of the most powerful companies of our generation. Google.com adding a single yellow box with an advertisement seemed reasonable, too. Anyone else having serious concerns about the direction this is going? At my wife's company they have already largely replaced an hourly data classification job with ChatGPT. This announcement is the first in an inevitable series of moves to monetize a technology that directly replaces human knowledge work. I'm not saying that those jobs need to be artificially protected or that painful changes should be avoided (basically all tech workers automate human work to some extent) but I'm really concerned about the wealth gap and the extent to which we are pouring gas on that fire. Income inequality looks just like it did before the Great Depression, and now we're handing the power to replace human work over to those who can afford to pay for it.
- vasco 4y ago
  > and now we're handing the power to replace human work over to those who can afford to pay for it. All technological advances through the ages have been doing this in one way or another. For some things people paid with their health or effort and for others people pay with money when that was available. I disagree with the "now". This is no different from a car. You seemed to say that in the middle of your comment but then reverted back.
  - kokanee 4y ago
    Fair; I think my poorly-articulated concern is that there seems to be a healthy pace of technological change at which our productivity increases but people have time to adapt and modernize their income streams. If technology replaces human work too quickly, people don't have time to adapt, and the middle class disappears. I don't even see a solution at this point, but keeping the technology free would at least not make the problem worse.
- realce 4y ago
  > and now we're handing the power to replace human work over to those who can afford to pay for it. That's been capitalist industrialization for the last 200 years. We have been warned thousands upon thousands of times already what's going to happen - that's what's going to happen. The only thing to do is to make this layer of tech accessible to every person on Earth to every degree of depth possible. The terror is in the imbalance of power and access, and the best-case we can get is if we totally erase that imbalance so we can once again compete as "equals"
JacobThreeThree 4y ago
It'll be like any other product. They'll have to develop usage policies as they mature.
Yajirobe 4y ago
I want to pay for what I use, not some predetermined fixed price (see DALL-E-2, Codex, etc.)
s3p 4y ago
That runs through the OpenAI API, which is priced based on usage.

kerpotgh 4y ago

It would be relatively easy. Restrict number of queries to something like 1 req/sec.

SeanAnderson 4y ago

Yeah it's interesting how their pricing model for existing APIs isn't subscription-based (https://openai.com/api/pricing/ https://openai.com/api/pricing/) I wonder why they diverged here?

wahnfrieden 4y ago
b2c vs b2b pricing
drusepth 4y ago
I'd hazard a guess that they're gonna start cracking down hard on unofficial API usage, and restrict the subscription to just their web UI. The fact that they're also offering a ChatGPT API soon seems to reinforce that duality.
- Acen 4y ago
  I'd say it depends on how much they're willing to dive into "growth" mode for the company. If they're willing to spend those Microsoft dollars on product usage being embed everywhere, then sacrificing some short-term monetary gain for businesses that are built around your product would be valuable.
shagie 4y ago
The approach on how you consume tokens. The APIs are stateless and have a "this is how many tokens you send", "this is how many tokens you asked for" - and thus the person making the requests can control the rate of consumption there. Unless you're being extremely inefficient or using it as part of some other service that has a significant number of requests (in which case ChatGPT isn't appropriate) then this is likely to be less expensive for simple queries. With ChatGPT you don't have insight into the number of tokens created or the number that are used in the background for maintaining state within a session. Trying to limit a person by tokens midway could have a negative impact on the product. So, estimate the amount of compute a person uses in a month and then base it on that.

webstrand 4y ago

$20 puts it way out of my price range. It's useful, but when I've been averaging around twenty queries a day and somewhat frequently get back hallucinated responses, it's not worth that price. I wish there was a pay-as-you-go or a lower tier offering.

m00x 4y ago
You'll still have access to the general availability version.
- webstrand 4y ago
  I'd like to pay for my usage. It's just that price is too high for my own limited usage. Not getting kicked into the waiting room for an hour every 2 queries is worth something to me.
  - cmeacham98 4y ago
    What price do you think would be "worth it"? With your existing usage, $20/month would be $0.03-$0.04 per query, which seems pretty reasonable?
    - webstrand 4y ago
      To be clear, I'm counting "every time I press submit" as a query. 3-4c to tell it "Your answer is clearly wrong because X, and Y" isn't very enticing. Around $10/mo would be far more palatable, I don't mind if my usage is capped. I simply do not get $20/mo worth of value back out of it at this point. That's basically the price of 1 book/mo, and I'd get more value out of that.
jeremyjh 4y ago
So you are doing something like 400 queries a month and the aggregate value of all those responses is less than $20 to you? I've got to ask, why bother querying it at all?

kokanee 4y ago

$20 is the very first price tier introduced at the very outset of what could be one of the most powerful companies of our generation. Google.com adding a single yellow box with an advertisement seemed reasonable, too. Anyone else having serious concerns about the direction this is going? At my wife's company they have already largely replaced an hourly data classification job with ChatGPT. This announcement is the first in an inevitable series of moves to monetize a technology that directly replaces human knowledge work. I'm not saying that those jobs need to be artificially protected or that painful changes should be avoided (basically all tech workers automate human work to some extent) but I'm really concerned about the wealth gap and the extent to which we are pouring gas on that fire. Income inequality looks just like it did before the Great Depression, and now we're handing the power to replace human work over to those who can afford to pay for it.

vasco 4y ago
> and now we're handing the power to replace human work over to those who can afford to pay for it. All technological advances through the ages have been doing this in one way or another. For some things people paid with their health or effort and for others people pay with money when that was available. I disagree with the "now". This is no different from a car. You seemed to say that in the middle of your comment but then reverted back.
- kokanee 4y ago
  Fair; I think my poorly-articulated concern is that there seems to be a healthy pace of technological change at which our productivity increases but people have time to adapt and modernize their income streams. If technology replaces human work too quickly, people don't have time to adapt, and the middle class disappears. I don't even see a solution at this point, but keeping the technology free would at least not make the problem worse.
realce 4y ago
> and now we're handing the power to replace human work over to those who can afford to pay for it. That's been capitalist industrialization for the last 200 years. We have been warned thousands upon thousands of times already what's going to happen - that's what's going to happen. The only thing to do is to make this layer of tech accessible to every person on Earth to every degree of depth possible. The terror is in the imbalance of power and access, and the best-case we can get is if we totally erase that imbalance so we can once again compete as "equals"

JacobThreeThree 4y ago

It'll be like any other product. They'll have to develop usage policies as they mature.

Yajirobe 4y ago

I want to pay for what I use, not some predetermined fixed price (see DALL-E-2, Codex, etc.)

s3p 4y ago

That runs through the OpenAI API, which is priced based on usage.