7 ms·

Shameless plug here for those (like the author) who are using GPT in your projects and finding the costs to be too high. We're building an open source wrapper

Shameless plug here for those (like the author) who are using GPT in your projects and finding the costs to be too high. We're building an open source wrapper around ChatGPT that lets you use it programmatically as an API or from Python or in CLI. Best of all, it's completely free! So it is great for testing the waters on a hobby project. Check it out on GitHub: https://github.com/mmabrouk/chatgpt-wrapper https://github.com/mmabrouk/chatgpt-wrapper p.s. Just to answer all the comments below. OpenAI currently does not provide an API to ChatGPT. Our goal is not to abuse ChatGPT, but to provide tools for hobbiest to leverage it (by creating a power shell around it, making workflows around it, even using templates...) until an official API is available. As soon as an official API is available, we would integrate it in our CLI. In any case, chatGPT has hard query limits that would not allow you to use our project for any heavy lifting!

seper8 4y ago
... Isn't chatGPT already available as an API? Or is this just a wrapper to the chatGPT public and free frontend? If thats the case I don't think this is fair use.
- danielbln 4y ago
  This is hooking into the ChatGPT UI API, which is something OpenAI does not like to see and could result in banning of the account. Of course, since it's using playwright to simulate a browser, it might be hard to detect, but still, I'd be cautious.
  - kschiffer 4y ago
    I don't even get why people wouldn't use normal GPT API (OpenAI completions) instead. Isn't it exactly the same except that ChatGPT is primed to be more conversational (which in many cases as the one in the OP is just noise anyway)?
    - ailef 4y ago
      There are some differences. For example ChatGPT underwent an extra finetuning step using reinforcement learning and it supports 8k tokens instead of 4k.
- chillfox 4y ago
  Yep, they have an API.
  - throwaway71271 4y ago
    they dont have api for chatgpt, they have api for davinci
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
omeysalvi 4y ago
Does this comply with Open AI's terms of service?
PUSH_AX 4y ago
Given that ChatGPT doesn't have a public facing API, I assume this goes against their usage policy?
- pxtail 4y ago
  They didn't care for any "usage policy" when scraping whole internet and whatever else available for the purpose of building their product
  - malborodog 4y ago
    Very similar to google's behavior with google scholar (and pretty much everything else). They built up according to one rule, but then we can't do the same thing to them. Funny that.
  - PUSH_AX 4y ago
    Well they used common crawl which respects individual site policies such as robots.txt. https://commoncrawl.org/big-picture/frequently-asked-questions/ https://commoncrawl.org/big-picture/frequently-asked-questio... So I think that's nonsense
    - amelius 4y ago
      I don't think that's true. For example, someone copying the web (but still respecting robots.txt) and claiming it's their own would be problematic surely? This is only one small step away from blatantly copying.
      - PUSH_AX 4y ago
        Wait, are we still talking about usage policies? Seems like a different discussion
        amelius 4y ago
        Well, I think the point is that robots.txt != usage_policy We probably need a license.txt convention to resolve this.
wongarsu 4y ago
$6 for about 100 pages of world-building honestly sounds not that bad. And that's before implementing any cost-saving measures. Queries with lots of context (like in this example) can quickly rack up the costs, but I've never felt that they are prohibitive for personal projects. The problems only start when you want to publish something other people can use, and at that point abusing ChatGPT sounds like a bad idea too.
shrimpx 4y ago
I’ve used this. Thanks! Nice cutting-edge work!
monkeydust 4y ago
This is great BUT should come with a buyer beware warning. ChatGPT doesn't have an API and this looks like it will break T&CS. Fine for a PoC, pet project perhaps but you can't expect anyone to build a commercial offering on the back of this.
- monkeydust 4y ago
  Having said all that I read this story on Axios. Either BS or Fiat and other firms have been given commercial access to ChatGPT. https://www.axios.com/2023/02/28/chatgpt-ai-sell-fiat-cars https://www.axios.com/2023/02/28/chatgpt-ai-sell-fiat-cars

seper8 4y ago

... Isn't chatGPT already available as an API? Or is this just a wrapper to the chatGPT public and free frontend? If thats the case I don't think this is fair use.

danielbln 4y ago
This is hooking into the ChatGPT UI API, which is something OpenAI does not like to see and could result in banning of the account. Of course, since it's using playwright to simulate a browser, it might be hard to detect, but still, I'd be cautious.
- kschiffer 4y ago
  I don't even get why people wouldn't use normal GPT API (OpenAI completions) instead. Isn't it exactly the same except that ChatGPT is primed to be more conversational (which in many cases as the one in the OP is just noise anyway)?
  - ailef 4y ago
    There are some differences. For example ChatGPT underwent an extra finetuning step using reinforcement learning and it supports 8k tokens instead of 4k.
chillfox 4y ago
Yep, they have an API.
- throwaway71271 4y ago
  they dont have api for chatgpt, they have api for davinci
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

omeysalvi 4y ago

Does this comply with Open AI's terms of service?

PUSH_AX 4y ago

Given that ChatGPT doesn't have a public facing API, I assume this goes against their usage policy?

pxtail 4y ago
They didn't care for any "usage policy" when scraping whole internet and whatever else available for the purpose of building their product
- malborodog 4y ago
  Very similar to google's behavior with google scholar (and pretty much everything else). They built up according to one rule, but then we can't do the same thing to them. Funny that.
- PUSH_AX 4y ago
  Well they used common crawl which respects individual site policies such as robots.txt. https://commoncrawl.org/big-picture/frequently-asked-questions/ https://commoncrawl.org/big-picture/frequently-asked-questio... So I think that's nonsense
  - amelius 4y ago
    I don't think that's true. For example, someone copying the web (but still respecting robots.txt) and claiming it's their own would be problematic surely? This is only one small step away from blatantly copying.
    - PUSH_AX 4y ago
      Wait, are we still talking about usage policies? Seems like a different discussion
      - amelius 4y ago
        Well, I think the point is that robots.txt != usage_policy We probably need a license.txt convention to resolve this.

wongarsu 4y ago

$6 for about 100 pages of world-building honestly sounds not that bad. And that's before implementing any cost-saving measures. Queries with lots of context (like in this example) can quickly rack up the costs, but I've never felt that they are prohibitive for personal projects. The problems only start when you want to publish something other people can use, and at that point abusing ChatGPT sounds like a bad idea too.

shrimpx 4y ago

I’ve used this. Thanks! Nice cutting-edge work!

monkeydust 4y ago

This is great BUT should come with a buyer beware warning. ChatGPT doesn't have an API and this looks like it will break T&CS. Fine for a PoC, pet project perhaps but you can't expect anyone to build a commercial offering on the back of this.

monkeydust 4y ago
Having said all that I read this story on Axios. Either BS or Fiat and other firms have been given commercial access to ChatGPT. https://www.axios.com/2023/02/28/chatgpt-ai-sell-fiat-cars https://www.axios.com/2023/02/28/chatgpt-ai-sell-fiat-cars