4 ms·
The GPT 3.5 API is cheaper than Google Translate. And in our testing (over a year ago) was better for translation. So I assume in that case the energy use is le
by frabcus 2y ago
The GPT 3.5 API is cheaper than Google Translate. And in our testing (over a year ago) was better for translation. So I assume in that case the energy use is less?
- jsheard 2y agoIsn't OpenAI still operating at a loss? You can't infer much from an API bring cheaper if it's being subsidised.
- CuriouslyC 2y agoGPT4 on the web is at a loss, $20/mo doesn't cover it unless someone's a rare user. GPT4 through API is not at a loss, and I doubt GPT3.5 is at a loss either.
- endisneigh 2y agoThese assertions are based off of what?
- hnfong 2y agoGiven that you can buy a at least a couple hours worth of GPU compute at $20, it's hard to believe the average user spends that much time (specifically waiting for the response) on GPT-4 on the web every month... Not to mention that they probably have optimizations that batch together queries at the same time and make things more efficient at scale...
- dopp0 2y agothe assertions were based on a prompt sent to chatgpt: "are you more efficient than google translate, cost-wise?"
- ben_w 2y agoI've not heard any claim that they're making a loss, only that they're structured as a kinda-but-its-weird not-for-profit. Given they tripped and fell over a money printing machine and then chose to lower their API prices, it would be pretty surprising (but not impossible) if their API prices are currently subsidised.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- lm28469 2y agoI doubt energy usage dictate the final price in such a way. You can't compare two widely different products from two company at completely different development stage to infer the energy usage of their product