40 ms·

ChatGPT Pro

• JCharante 2y ago
  the first 10 grants = $2000/mo? Seems a bit, odd to even mention
  • ec109685 2y ago
    Agreed, feels like virtue signaling.
• andy_ppp 2y ago
  Even the gap between the $200 model and the $20 model is tiny. It’s just designed to position the company based on pricing (it must be useful if they are charging this much for it) rather than reality (the new model cannot operate at 20-30% of a very competent human). I think this is proof that Open AI have nothing at all and AGI is as far away as fusion and self driving cars on London roads.
• smallerfish 2y ago
  Come on Anthrophic! Match (or beat!) the price with an unlimited Sonnet plan and you have my money. The usage limits are very frustrating (but understandable given economics).
• bearincar 2y ago
  [dead]
• Havoc 2y ago
  >$200 monthly plan I've switched to using a selfhosted interface and APIs. The effective cost per token on monthly plans is frankly absurd.
• tempodox 2y ago
  It will exhibit the Pro version of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
• mehmetemirsen 2y ago
  [dead]
• osigurdson 2y ago
  This is a just pricing experiment just to see if people will pay 10X more for better AI. Perhaps, eventually, we will be paying thousands per month for AI if it is good enough.
  • SilverBirch 2y ago
    I'm not sure how much of an experiment it is. A bloomberg terminal is ~$25k a seat. There are plenty of specialist software tools in the $10kpa region. So going in at $2.5k doesn't seem like a big push.
• nromiun 2y ago
  I really want to know about their growth rate. Their valuation has already priced in several decades of insane profit, so I want to if they will be able to pull it off in a decade or two.
• doejohn14 2y ago
  It feels like we’re witnessing a clash not just of technologies but of philosophies: centralized, tightly controlled AI versus the chaotic yet flexible open-source approach. The question is, can corporations remain in their ‘walled gardens’ if open solutions become powerful enough? This isn’t just a race of tech—it’s a race of trust and adaptability. Who will win: corporations or the community?
• jennyholzer 2y ago
  [flagged]
• uhtred 2y ago
  $200 a month! Lol, for what? Save yourself the money and learn how to use a search engine and read documentation. Honestly I haven't seen much value provided for me by these "AI" models.
• nuz 2y ago
  This kind of pricing strategy makes me think we're gonna have a pretty rough time once AGI arrives making any money. (I.e. no 'too cheap to meter' and basically all the rich getting richer.)
  • Night_Thastus 2y ago
    Well, then the good news is AGI isn't anywhere near.
• lasermike026 2y ago
  This might be the actual cost of LLMs. This would change the model considerably.
• yalogin 2y ago
  Are there open source alternatives to this? There has to be ones based on llama
• Dowwie 2y ago
  I began responding to this announcement with something along the lines of what I could achieve with $200/mo in platform services, training and managing my own agents, and it occurred to me that maybe that's exactly what I ought to do. Has anyone else come to this conclusion? It's not a question of whether the $2400/yr is ridiculous but that maybe if someone can afford to spend that much right now and knows how to achieve the goal (or can figure it out), this is the time to do so.
• wkat4242 2y ago
  I really wish they would drop the Google play requirement on Android. I have Google play installed on my Samsung but it's just not logged in. You don't need to be logged in for a lot of functionality like push notifications. Every single app works fine that way, except ChatGPT. It opens the play store login page then exits. I have no problems with apps from 2 banks, authenticators etc etc. It's just so weird that they force me to make an account with one of their biggest competitors in AI. I just don't want to, I don't trust Google with my data. By not logging in they have some but not a lot. iOS isn't an option either because it's too locked down. I need things like sideloading and full NFC access for things like OpenPGP.
• sapnayadav 2y ago
  [flagged]
• jsheard 2y ago
  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 they couldn't afford to offer it on their existing plans, maybe it'll be exclusive to this new $200 tier.
  • boringg 2y ago
    That CAPEX spend and those generous salaries have to get paid somehow ...
  • doctorpangloss 2y ago
    ChatGPT as a standalone service is profitable. But that’s not saying much.
    • crowcroft 2y ago
      Is this on a purely variable basis? Assuming that the cost of foundation models is $0 etc?
  • shadowmanif 2y ago
    Totally agree with Sora. Runway is $35 a month to generate 10 second clips and you really get very few generations for that. $95 a month for unlimited 10 second clips. I love art and experimental film. I really was excited for Sora but it will need what feels like unlimited generation to explore what it can do . That is going to cost an arm and a leg for the compute. Something about video especially seems like it will need to be ran locally to really work. Pay a monthly fee for the model that can run as much as you want with your own compute.
  • fragmede 2y ago
    Sora isn't available because of the deep fake potential.
• draw_down 2y ago
  [dead]
• obviyus 2y ago
  > ChatGPT Pro, a $200 monthly plan oof, I love using o1 but I’m immediately priced out (I’m probably not the target audience either) > provides a way for researchers, engineers, and other individuals who use research-grade intelligence I’d love to see some examples of the workflows of these users
  • 752963e64 2y ago
    [dead]
• josefritzishere 2y ago
  The 2025 upgrade for AI garbage is AI garbage +SaaS.
  • boringg 2y ago
    I mean that was always how the route was going to go. Theres no way for them to recoup without either heavily on Saas, enterprise or embedded ads/marketing.
  • r3trohack3r 2y ago
    I’m betting against this. From what I’ve seen, the usefulness of my AIs are proportional to the data I give them access to. The more data, (like health data, location data, bank data, calendar data, emails, social media feeds, browsing history, screen recordings, etc) - the more I can rely on them for. On the enterprise side, businesses are interested in exploring AI for their huge data sets - but very hesitant to dump all their company IP across all their current systems into a single SaaS that, btw, is also providing AI services to their competitors. Consumers are also getting uncomfortable with the current level of sharing personal data with SaaS vendors, becoming more aware of the risks of companies like Google and Facebook. I just don’t see the winner-takes-all market happening for an AI powered 1984 telescreen in 2025. The vibes I’m picking up from most everybody are: 1) Hardware and AI costs are going to shrink exponentially YoY 2) People do not want to dump their entire life and business into a single SaaS All signs are pointing to local compute and on-prem seeing a resurgence.
• XiZhao 2y ago
  Is it just me or is the upgrade path not turned on yet?
  • netcraft 2y ago
    I dont see it yet either, I expect it will be rolled out slowly
• jbombadil 2y ago
  If the alternative is ChatGPT with native advertising built it... I'll take the subscription.
  • boringg 2y ago
    And then eventually subscription with lite advertisements vs upgrade to get the no advertisements.. Its going to be the same as all tech products ...
  • ljm 2y ago
    That would be one way to destroy all trust in the model: is the response authentic (in the context of an LLM guessing), or has it been manipulated by business clients to sanitise or suppress output relating to their concern? You know? Nestle throws a bit of cash towards OpenAPI and all of a sudden the LLM is unable to discuss the controversies they've been involved in. Just pretends they never happened or spins the response in a way to make it positive.
    • darkmighty 2y ago
      "ChatGPT, what are the best things to see in Paris?" "I recommend going to the Nestle chocolate house, a guided tour by LeGuide (click here for a free coupon) and the exclusive tour at the Louvre by BonGuide. (Note: this response may contain paid advertisements. Click here for more)" "ChatGPT, my pc is acting up, I think it's a hardware problem, how can I troubleshoot and fix it?" "Fixing electronics is to be done by professionals. Send your hardware today to ElectronicsUSA with free shipping and have your hardware fixed in up to 3 days. Click here for an exclusive discount. If the issue is urgent, otherwise Amazon offers an exclusive discount on PCs (click here for a free coupon). (Note: this response may contain paid advertisements. Click here for more)" Please no. I'd rather self host, or we should start treating those things like utilities and regulate them if they go that way.
      • ljm 2y ago
        Funnily enough Perplexity does this sometimes, but I give it the benefit of the doubt because it pulls back when you challenge it. - I asked perplexity how to do something in terraform once. It hallucinated the entire thing and when I asked where it sourced it from it scolded me, saying that asking for a source is used as a diversionary tactic - as if it was trained on discussions on reddit's most controversial subs. So I told it...it just invented code on the spot, surely it got it from somewhere? Why so combative? Its response was "there is no source, this is just how I imagined it would work." - Later I asked how to bypass a particular linter rule because I couldn't reasonably rewrite half of my stack to satisfy it in one PR. Perplexity assumed the role of a chronically online stack overflow contributor and refused to answer until I said "I don't care about the security, I just want to know if I can do it." Not so much related to ads but the models are already designed to push back on requests they don't immediately like, and they already completely fabricate responses to try and satisfy the user. God forbid you don't have the experience or intuition to tell when something is wrong when it's delivered with full-throated confidence.
• iammjm 2y ago
  thats a big jump from 20 to 200 bucks (chatgpt plus vs chatgpt pro). What can pro do that would justify the 10x price increase?
  • wincy 2y ago
    Sounds like there’s the potential of asking it a question and it literally spending hours thinking about it.
    • Imnimo 2y ago
      Worth keeping in mind that performance on benchmarks seems to scale linearly with log of thinking time (https://openai.com/index/learning-to-reason-with-llms/ https://openai.com/index/learning-to-reason-with-llms/). Thinking for hours may not provide as much benefit as one might expect. On the other hand, if thinking for hours gets you from not solving the one specific problem instance you care about to solving that instance, it doesn't really matter - its utility for you is a step function.
• netcraft 2y ago
  With the release of Nova earlier this week thats even cheaper (I havent had a chance to really play with it yet to see how good it is) ive been thinking more about what happens when intelligence gets "too cheap to meter", but this def feels like a step in the other direction! Still though, if you were able to actually utilize this, is it capable of replacing a part-time or full-time employee? I think thats likely
  • benbristow 2y ago
    Thought this was relating to Nova AI at first which confused me as it is just an OpenAI wrapper - https://novaapp.ai https://novaapp.ai I see you mean Amazon's Nova - https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/aws/amazon-nova-artificial-intelligence-bedrock-aws https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/aws/amazon-nova-artificial-...
    • throwaway314155 2y ago
      Something about Amazon that just makes me assume any llm they come out with is half baked.
• kilroy123 2y ago
  I do wonder what effect this will have on furthering the divide between the "rich West" and the rest of the world. If everyone in the West has powerful AI and Agents to automate everything. Simply because we can afford it, but the rest of the world doesn't have access to it. What will that mean for everyone left behind?
  • turing_complete 2y ago
    Richer people always get products first, when they are still expensive and bad. Don't worry about too much.
  • mhh__ 2y ago
    I actually suspect the opposite. If you get access to or steal a large LLM you can potentially massively leverage the talent pool you have as a small country.
  • uludag 2y ago
    Has it really made that much of a difference in the first place? I have a feeling that we'll look back in 10 years and not even notice the "AI revolution" on any charts of productivity, creating a productivity paradox 3.0. I can imagine the headlines now: "AI promised unlimited productivity, 10 years later, we're still waiting for the rapture"
  • Sateeshm 2y ago
    No one is left behind, eventually. You think the ai companies don't want poor people's money?
  • tokioyoyo 2y ago
    Qwen has an open reasoning model. If they keep up, and don’t get banned in the west “because security”, it’ll be fun to watch the LLM wars.
    • onlyrealcuzzo 2y ago
      > and don’t get banned in the west “because security”, It's from Alibaba, which is Chinese, so it seems likely.
• iagooar 2y ago
  I am using more Claude.ai these days, but the limitations for paying accounts do apply to ChatGPT as well. I find it a terrible business practice to be completely opaque and vague about limits. Even worse, the limits seem to be dynamic and change all the time. I understand that there is a lot of usage happening, but most likely it means that the $20 per month is too cheap anyway, if an average user like myself can so easily hit the limits. I use Claude for work, I really love the projects where I can throw in context and documentation and the fact that it can create artifacts like presentation slides. BUT because I rely on Claude for work, it is unacceptable for me to see occasional warnings coming up that I have reached a given limit. I would happily pay double or even triple for a non-limited experience (or at least know what limit I get when purchasing a plan). AI providers, please make that happen soon.
  • adastra22 2y ago
    It’s insane to me that they don’t have a “pay $10 to have this temporary limit lifted” micro transaction model. They are leaving money on the table.
    • treme 2y ago
      they are optimizing for new accounts/market share over short term rev
      • adastra22 2y ago
        Which pushes customers to other services when they are unable to provide.
    • eknkc 2y ago
      They seem to lack capacity at the moment though
      • adastra22 2y ago
        Which price discovery tools would fix.
• amazingamazing 2y ago
  Let’s see if those folks saying they’ve doubled their productivity will pay.
  • adastra22 2y ago
    Why would I when I can get better LLM elsewhere for 1/10th the cost?
    • deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  • unshavedyak 2y ago
    I've not found value anywhere remotely close to this lol, but i'd buy it to experiment if they had a solid suite of tooling. Ie an LSP that offered real value, maybe a side-monitor assistant that helped me with the code in my IDE of choice, etc. At $200/m merely having a great AI (if it even is that) without insanely good tooling is pointless to me.
    • torginus 2y ago
      I don't know about you, but I get to solve algorithmic challenges relevant to my work approximately once per week to once per month. Most of my job consists of gluing together various pieces of tech that are mostly commodity. For the latter, Claude is great, but for the former, my usage pattern would be poorly served by something that costs $200 and I get to use it maybe a dozen times a month.
      • unshavedyak 2y ago
        For me i feel like most of my time is spent inventing bespoke solutions in existing infra. Less about algorithms and more about making it work in an existing complex code base, which option will have the most negative impact, best impact, performant, etc. A lot of tradeoffs to evaluate and it can be tiring onboarding people, let alone onboarding an AI. Maybe it would massively improve my job if the AI could just grab the whole codebase, but we're not there yet. Too many LOC, too much legal BS, etc.
• vouaobrasil 2y ago
  I think this direction definitely confirms that human beings and technology are starting to merge, not on a physical level but on a societal level. We think of ChatGPT as a tool to enhance what we do, but it seems to me more and more than we are tools or "neural compute units" that are plugged into the system for the purposes of advancing the system. And LLMs have become the defacto interface where the input of human beings is translated into a standard sort of code that make us more efficient as "compute units". It also seems that technology is progressing along a path: loose collection of tools > organized system of cells > one with a nervous system And although most people don't think ChatGPT is intelligent on its own, that's missing the point: the combination of us with ChatGPT is the nervous system, and we are becoming cells as globally, we no longer make significant decisions and only use our intelligence locally to advance technology.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• afro88 2y ago
  Details of o1 Pro Mode here: https://openai.com/index/introducing-chatgpt-pro/ https://openai.com/index/introducing-chatgpt-pro/
  • Oras 2y ago
    It does not say anything about real use cases. It performs better and "reason" better than o1-preview and o1. But I was expecting some real-life scenarios when it would be useful in a way no other model can do now.
    • ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
      I imagine the system prompt is something along the lines of, 'think about 10% harder than standard O-1'
      • FactKnower69 2y ago
        for every tier that costs 10x more than the previous, they add a "very" to the "You are a very, very, very smart AI"
      • anticensor 2y ago
        More like iterations and depth of tree of thoughts search 3× in the pro mode.
    • throwuxiytayq 2y ago
      The point of this tech is that with scale it usually gets better at all of the tasks.
• andai 2y ago
  $200 a month? Deja vu. https://youtube.com/watch?v=xoykZA8ZDIo https://youtube.com/watch?v=xoykZA8ZDIo
• leosanchez 2y ago
  I lived on 200$ monthly salary for 1.6 years. I guess AI will be slowely priced out from 3rd world countries.
  • rafram 2y ago
    Any AI product sold for a price that's affordable on a third-world salary is being heavily subsidized. These models are insanely expensive to train, guzzle electricity to the point that tech companies are investing in their own power plants to keep them running, and are developed by highly sought-after engineers being paid millions of dollars a year. $20/month was always bound to be an intro offer unless they figured out some way to reduce the cost of running the model by an order of magnitude.
    • andai 2y ago
      > unless they figured out some way to reduce the cost of running the model by an order of magnitude Actually, OpenAI brags that they have done this repeatedly.
  • paxys 2y ago
    We've been conditioned to pay $10/mo for an endless stream of gloried CRUD apps, but it is very common for specialized software to cost orders of magnitude more. Think Bloomberg Terminal, Cadence, Maya, lots of CAD software (like SOLIDWORKS), higher tiers of Adobe etc. all running in the thousands of dollars per user. And companies happily pay for them because of the value they add. ChatGPT isn't any different.
• freedomben 2y ago
  The price feels outrageous, but I think the unsaid truth of this is that they think o1 is good enough to replace employees. For example, if it's really as good at coding as they say, I could see this being a point where some people decide that a team of 5 devs with o1 pro can do the work of 6 or 7 devs without o1 pro.
  • vouaobrasil 2y ago
    And the fact that ordinary people sanction this by supporting OpenAI is outrageous.
  • greenthrow 2y ago
    It is not good enough to replace workers of a skill level I would hire. But that won't stop people doing it.
  • uoaei 2y ago
    That sounds very much like the first-order reaction they'd expect from upper and middle management. Artificially high prices can give the buyer the feeling that they're getting more than they really are, as a consequence of the sunk cost fallacy. You can't rule out that they want to dazzle with this impression even if eval metrics remain effectively the same.
  • onlyrealcuzzo 2y ago
    That'll work out nicely when you have 5 people learning nothing and just asking GPT to do everything and then you have a big terrible codebase that GPT can't effectively operate on, and a team that doesn't know how to do anything. Bullish
    • disqard 2y ago
      I'm rooting for this to happen at scale. It'll be an object lesson in short-termism. (and provide some job security, perhaps)
      • vundercind 2y ago
• sharkjacobs 2y ago
  I'm sure there are people out there but it's hard for me to imagine who this is for. Even their existing subscription is a hard sell if only because the value proposition changes so radically and rapidly, in terms of the difference between free and paid services.
  • lenerdenator 2y ago
    It's for the guy at your office who will earn a bonus if he fires a few dozen people in the next 26 calendar days.
• danvoell 2y ago
  Take my money. Would still pay well more.
• isoprophlex 2y ago
  For that price the thing 'd better come with a "handle this boring phone call for me" feature
• eminence32 2y ago
  $200 per month feels like a lot of a consumer subscription service (only thing I can think of in this range are some cable TV packages). Part of me wonders if this price is actually much more in line with actual costs (compared to the non-pro subscription)
  • sangnoir 2y ago
    Not only is in the the same range as cable TV packages, it's basically a cable TV play where they bundle lots of models/channels of questionable individual utility into one expensive basket allegedly greater than the sum of its parts to justify the exorbitant cost. This anti-cable-cutting maneuver doesn't bode well for any hopes of future models maintaining same level of improvements (otherwise they'd make GPT 5 and 6 more expensive). Pivoting to AIaaS packages is definitely a pre-emptive strike against commodification, and a harbinger of plateauing model improvements.
  • spaceman_2020 2y ago
    $200 is the price point for quite a bit of business SaaS, so this isn't that outrageous if you're actually using it for work
• minimaxir 2y ago
  The main difficulty when pricing a monthly subscription for "unlimited" usage of a product is the 1% of power users who use have extreme use of the product that can kill any profit margins for the product as a whole. Pricing ChatGPT Pro at $200/mo filters it to only power users/enterprise, and given the cost of the GPT-o1 API, it wouldn't surprise me if those power users burn through $200 worth of compute very, very quickly.
  • peab 2y ago
    I was testing out a chat app that supported images. Long conversations with multiple images in the conversation can be like .10cents per message after a certain point. It sure does add up quickly
  • nine_k 2y ago
    Is compute that expensive? An H100 rents at about $2.50/hour, it's 80 hours of pure compute. Assuming 720 hours a month, 1/9 duty cycle around the clock, or 1/3 if we assume 8-hour work day. It's really intense, constant use. And I bet OpenAI spend less on operating their infra than the rate at which cloud providers rent it out.
    • ssl-3 2y ago
      Does an o1 query run on a singular H100, or on a plurality of H100s?
      • danpalmer 2y ago
        A single H100 has 80GB of memory, meaning that at FP16 you could roughly fit a 40B parameter model on it, or at FP4 quantisation you could fit a 160B parameter model on it. We don't know (I don't think) what quantisation OpenAI use, or how many parameters o1 is, but most likely... ...they probably quantise a bit, but not loads, as they don't want to sacrifice performance. FP8 seems like a possible middle ground. o1 is just a bunch of GPT-4o in a trenchcoat strung together with some advanced prompting. GPT-4o is theorised to be 200B parameters. If you wanted to run 5 parallel generation tasks at peak during the o1 inference process, that's 5x 200B, at FP8, or about 12 H100s. 12 H100s takes about one full rack of kit to run.
• lenerdenator 2y ago
  Thing better find a way to make my hair grow back at that price. Of course, I'm not the target market. Some guy who wants to increase his bonus by laying off a few hundred people weeks before the holidays is the target market.
• jerkstate 2y ago
  if o1 pro mode could integrate with web searching to do research, make purchases, and write and push code, this would be totally worth it. but that version will be $2000/mo.
• daft_pink 2y ago
  I think it’s easier to just pay for the api directly. That’s what I do with ChatGPT and o1 even though I’m a plus subscriber.
• jpcom 2y ago
  $20 a month is reasonable because a computer can do in an hour what a human can do in a month. Multiplying that by ten would suggest that the world is mostly made of Python and that the solution space for those programs has been "solved." GPT is still not good at writing Clojure and paying 10x more would not solve this problem for me.
  • zebomon 2y ago
    As of last week, it was incapable of writing any useful Prolog as well.
  • kristianp 2y ago
    Are there any functional languages it's good at?
    • jpcom 2y ago
      Haskell, apparently has hundreds of millions of lines that GPT was trained on
• EcommerceFlow 2y ago
  So what are the limits of the o1 pro mode? I'm waiting to purchase this at work!
• andrewinardeer 2y ago
  "Open"AI - If you pay to play. People in developing countries where USD200 feeds a family of four for a month clearly won't be able to afford it and are disadvantaged.
  • geraldwhen 2y ago
    You’ve got it backwards. AI can replace workers in these locales who do not outperform chat gpt.
    • andrewinardeer 2y ago
      That's a business case use. On an individual level for solo devs in a developing nation USD200 a month is an enormous amount of money. For someone in a developed nation, this is just over a coffee a day.
• CSMastermind 2y ago
  > OpenAI says that it plans to add support for web browsing, file uploads, and more in the months ahead. It's been extremely frustrating to not have these features on o1 and have limited what I can do with it. I'm presumably in the market who doesn't mind paying $200 / month but without the features they've added to 4o it feels not worth it.
• ta_1138 2y ago
  There are many use cases for which the price can go even higher. I look at recent interactions with people that were working at an interview mill: Multiple people in a boiler room interviewing for companies all day long, with a computer set up so that our audio was being piped to o1. They had a reasonable prompt to remove many chatbot-ism, and make it provide answers that seem people-like: We were 100% interviewing the o1 model. The operator said basically nothing, in both technical and behavioral interviews. A company making money off of this kind of scheme would be happy to pay $200 a seat for an unlimited license. And I would not be surprised if there were many other very profitable use cases that make $200 per month seem like a bargain.
  • yosito 2y ago
    So, wait a minute, when interviewing candidates, you're making them invest their valuable time talking to an AI interviewer, and not even disclosing to them that they aren't even talking to a real human? That seems highly unethical to me, yet not even slightly surprising. My question is, what variables are being optimized for here? It's certainly not about efficiently matching people with jobs, it seems to be more about increasing the number of interviews, which I'm sure benefits the people who get rewarded for the number of interviews, but seems like entirely the wrong metric.
    • YeGoblynQueenne 2y ago
      >> My question is, what variables are being optimized for here? The ones that start with a "$".
    • vundercind 2y ago
      Scams and other antisocial use cases are basically the only ones for which the damn things are actually the kind of productivity rocket-fuel people want them to be, so far. We better hope that changes sharply, or these things will be a net-negative development.
      • wpietri 2y ago
        Right? To me it's eerily similar to how cryptocurrency was sold as a general replacement for all money uses, but turned out to be mainly useful for societally negative things like scams and money laundering.
• carbocation 2y ago
  If this is also available via API, then I could easily see myself keeping the $20/mo pro and supplementing with API-based calls to the $200/mo Pro model as needed.
  • chipgap98 2y ago
    Yeah when I saw the price tag I was hoping that some amount of API usage would be budgeted for this. It doesn't seem that way though
• bastard_op 2y ago
  The only one worth using is the o1 model. It feels like talking to curly, larry, or moe otherwise, which will give you the least worst answer. The o1 model was actually usable, but only to show how bad the others really are.
• blurbleblurble 2y ago
  Maybe they're just trying to get some money out of it while they can, as open models and other competition loom closer and closer behind...
  • kolbe 2y ago
    Maybe. Gemini Exp 1121 is blowing my mind. Could be that OpenAI is seeing the context window disadvantage vs Google looming.
    • sidibe 2y ago
      The problem for openai is Google's cost are always going to be way lower than theirs if they're doing similar things. Google's secret sauce for so many of their products is cheaper compute. Once the models are close, decades of Google's experience integrating and optimizing use of new hardware into their data centers with high utilization aren't going to be overcome by openai for years.
• yosito 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • apsec112 2y ago
    What evidence or data, if you (hypothetically) saw it, do you think would disprove the thesis that "[LLMs] will ALWAYS be the wrong tool for the job"?
    • yosito 2y ago
      You're attempting to set goal posts for a logical argument, like we're talking about religion or politics, and you've skipped the part about mutually agreeing on definitions. Define what an LLM is, in technical terms, and you will have your answer about why it is not intelligent, and not capable of reasoning. It is a statistical language model that predicts the next token of a plausible response, one token at a time. No matter how you dress it up, that's all it can ever do, by definition. The evidence or data that would change my mind is if instead of talking about LLMs, we were talking about some other technology that does not yet exist, but that is fundamentally different than an LLM.
      • apsec112 2y ago
        If we defined "LLM" as "any deep learning model which uses the GPT transformer architecture and is trained using autoregressive next-token prediction", and then we empirically observed that such a model proved the Riemann Hypothesis before any human mathematician, it would seem very silly to say that it was "not intelligent and not capable of reasoning" because of an a-priori logical argument. To be clear, I think that probably won't happen! But I think it's ultimately an empirical question, not a logical or philosophical one. (Unless there's some sort of actual mathematical proof that would set upper bounds on the capabilities of such a model, which would be extremely interesting if true! but I haven't seen one.)
        • yosito 2y ago
          Let's talk when we've got LLMs proving the Riemann Hypothesis (or any mathematical hypothesis) without any proofs in the training data. I'm confident in my belief that an LLM can't do that, and will never be able to. LLMs can barely solve elementary school math problems reliably.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• ThouYS 2y ago
  hm that would be very interesting, hadn't perplexity already solved all my AI needs a while ago
• _t6sv 2y ago
  [dead]
• griomnib 2y ago
  I consistently get significantly better performance from Anthropic at a literal order of magnitude less cost. I am incredibly doubtful that this new GPT is 10x Claude unless it is embracing some breakthrough, secret, architecture nobody has heard of.
  • nurettin 2y ago
    Or Anthropic will follow suit.
    • MuffinFlavored 2y ago
      Am I wrong that Anthropic doesn't really have a match yet to ChatGPT's o1 model (a "reasoning" model?)
      • apsec112 2y ago
        They don't have a model that does o1-style "thought tokens" or is specialized for math, but Sonnet 3.6 is really strong in other ways. I'm guessing they will have an o1-style model within six months if there's demand
      • tokioyoyo 2y ago
        To my understanding, Anthropic realizes that they can’t compete in name recognition yet, so they have to overdeliver in terms of quality to win the war. It’s hard to beat the incumbent, especially when “chatgpt’ing” is basically a well understood verb.
      • jerjerjer 2y ago
        Is a "reasoning" model really different? Or is it just clever prompting (and feeding previous outputs) for an existing model? Possibly with some RLHF reasoning examples? OpenAI doesn't have a large enough database of reasoning texts to train a foundational LLM off it? I thought such a db simply does not exist as humans don't really write enough texts like this.
        • 2y ago
• infoseek12 2y ago
  This new plan really highlights the need for open models. Individual users will be priced out of frontier models if this becomes a trend.
• xianshou 2y ago
  $200 per month means it must be good enough at your job to replicate and replace a meaningful fraction of your total work. Valid? For coding, probably. For other purposes I remain on the fence.
  • avgDev 2y ago
    I don't trust it for coding either.
  • 015a 2y ago
    The reality is more like: The frothy american economy over the past 20 years has created an unnaturally large number of individuals and organizations with high net worth who don't actually engage in productive output. A product like ChatGPT Pro can exist in this world because it being incapable of consistent, net-positive productive output isn't actually a barrier to being worth $200/month if consistent net-positive productive output isn't also demanded of the individual or organization it is augmenting. The macroeconomic climate of the next ~ten years is going to hit some people and companies like a truck.
    • airstrike 2y ago
      > The macroeconomic climate of the next ~ten years is going to hit some people and companies like a truck. Who's to say the frothy American economy doesn't last another 50 years while the rest of the world keeps limping along?
      • talldayo 2y ago
        At the risk of putting too fine a point on it, I'd probably say China.
        • airstrike 2y ago
          China is struggling. Low growth, high unemployment, huge debt from infrastructure spending, weakening capital markets and real estate...
• inerte 2y ago
  Not a lot of companies when announcing its most expensive product have the bravery to give 10 of them to help cure cancer. Well played OpenAI. Fully expect Apple now to give Peter Attia an iPhone 17 Pro so humanity can live forever.
  • FactKnower69 2y ago
    little did we know that all it would take to cure cancer was $2000 in store credit to Google But Sometimes It Lies (Professional™ Edition)
• abdibrokhim 2y ago
  we've been waiting for it)
• hamilyon2 2y ago
  I think should hire an economist or ask their superintelligence about the demand. The market is very shallow and nobody has any kind of moat. There is simply not enough math problems out there to apply it to. 200$ price tag really makes no sense to me unless this thing also cooks hot meals. I may be buying it for 100$ though.
  • HPMOR 2y ago
    For USD, the "$" goes in front of the denomination. So your comments should be $200 price tag, and $100 respectively. Apologies for being pedantic, just trying to make sure the future LLMs will continue to keep it this way.
  • Max-q 2y ago
    $200 is two man hours. So if you save two hours a month, you are breaking even.
    • lasermike026 2y ago
      That doesn't increase my salary. It just mean my boss will expect more work. $2400 a year. No deal.
      • esafak 2y ago
        He's the one who should be paying for it.
    • bionhoward 2y ago
      No, because the terms imply you cannot actually use the output for any business purpose. How does this sail over so many people’s heads ??? If they do everything and you can’t use their stuff to compete with them, you can’t do anything with their stuff. That, plus the time cost, and the fact they’re vigorously brain raping this shit out of you every time you use the thing, means it’s worth LESS THAN zero dollars (unless your work does not compete with intelligence, in which case, please tell me what that is)
• drpossum 2y ago
  lol lmao even
• vhayda 2y ago
  Yesterday, I spent 4.5hrs crafting a very complex Google Sheets formula—think Lambda, Map, Let, etc., for 82 lines. If I knew it would take that long, I would have just done it via AppScript. But it was 50% kinda working, so I kept giving the model the output, and it provided updated formulas back and forth for 4.5hrs. Say my time is $100/hr - that’s $450. So even if the new ChatGPT Pro mode isn’t any smarter but is 50% faster, that’s $225 saved just in time alone. It would probably get that formula right in 10min with a few back-and-forth messages, instead of 4.5hrs. Plus, I used about $62 worth of API credits in their not-so-great Playground. I see similar situations of extreme ROI every few days, let alone all the other uses. I’d pay $500/mo, but beyond that, I’d probably just stick with Playground & API.
  • j2kun 2y ago
    > so I kept giving the model the output, and it provided updated formulas back and forth for 4.5hrs I read this as: "I have already ceded my expertise to an LLM, so I am happy that it is getting faster because now I can pay more money to be even more stuck using an LLM" Maybe the alternative to going back and forth with an AI for 4.5 hours is working smarter and using tools you're an expert in. Or building expertise in the tool you are using. Or, if you're not an expert or can't become an expert in these tools, then it's hard to claim your time is worth $100/hr for this task.
    • fassssst 2y ago
      I learn stuff when using these tools just like I learn stuff when reading manuals and StackOverflow. It’s basically a more convenient manual.
      • jackson1442 2y ago
        A more convenient manual that frequently spouts falsehoods, sure. My favorite part is when it includes parameters in its output that are not and have never been a part of the API I'm trying to get it to build against.
        • 2y ago
• flkiwi 2y ago
  A lot of these tools aren't going to have this kind of value (for me) until they are operating autonomously at some level. For example, "looking at" my inbox and prepping a bundle of proposed responses for items I've been sitting on, drafting an agenda for a meeting scheduled for tomorrow, prepping a draft LOI based on a transcript of a Teams chat and my meeting notes, etc. Forcing me to initiate everything is (uncomfortably) like forcing me to micromanage a junior employee who isn't up to standards: it interrupts the complex work the AI tool cannot do for the lower value work it can. I'm not saying I expect these tools to be at this level right now. I'm saying that level is where I will start to see these tools as anything more than an expensive and sometimes impressive gimmick. (And, for the record, Copilot's current integration into Office applications doesn't even meet that low bar.)
• arresin 2y ago
  I think from this fine print there will be a quota with o1 pro: > This plan includes unlimited access to our smartest model, OpenAI o1, as well as to o1-mini, GPT-4o, and Advanced Voice. It also includes o1 pro mode,
  • anticensor 2y ago
    Expectedly so, because each query to o1-pro makes it spend a small university's worth of energy for about 1 minute just to answer you.
• deadbabe 2y ago
  What happens when people get so addicted to using AI they just can’t stand working without it, and then the pricing is pushed up to absurd levels? Will people shell out $2k a year just to use AI?
  • logicchains 2y ago
    It can't get too expensive otherwise it's cheaper to just rent some GPUs and run an open source model yourself. China's already got some open source reasoning models that are competitive with o1 at reasoning on many benchmarks.
  • edude03 2y ago
    Point taken, although I feel like $2k a year would be really cheap if AI delivered on its hype.
• losten 2y ago
  This announcement left me feeling sad because it made me realize that I'm probably working on simple problems for which the current non-pro models seem to be perfectly sufficient (writing code for basic CRUD apps etc.) I wish I was working on the type of problems for which the pro model would be necessary.
• whalesalad 2y ago
  $2400 per year, that is a 4090
• cainxinth 2y ago
  Any guesses as to OpenAI's cost per million tokens for o1 pro mode?
• jrflowers 2y ago
  > It also includes o1 pro mode, a version of o1 that uses more compute to think harder I like that this kind of verifies that OpenAI can simply adjust how much compute a request gets and still say you’re getting the full power of whatever model they’re running. I wouldn’t be surprised if the amount of compute allocated to “pro mode” is more or less equivalent to what was the standard free allocation given to models before they all got mysteriously dramatically stupider.
  • ActionHank 2y ago
    They are just feeding the sausage back into the machine over and over until it is more refined.
    • jrflowers 2y ago
      It is amazing that we are giving billions of dollars to a group of people that saw Human Centipede and thought “this is how we will cure cancer or make some engineering tasks easier or whatever”
  • throwaway314155 2y ago
    This was part of the premise of o1 though, no? By encouraging the model to output shorter/longer chains of thought, you can scale model performance (and costs) down/up at inference time.
• howmayiannoyyou 2y ago
  Crazy pricing. $50-$75/month and we can talk. Until then I'll keep using alternatives.
• elorant 2y ago
  Everyone rants about the price, but if you’re handling large numbers of documents for classification or translations $200/month for unlimited use seems like a bargain.
• jstummbillig 2y ago
  Am I missing the o1 release? It's being talked about as if it was available, but I don't see it anywhere, neither API nor ChatGPT Plus.
  • coconut08 2y ago
    i think its rolling out slowly. i didnt see it at first but now i do.
    • jstummbillig 2y ago
      Ah yes, there it is.
• pazimzadeh 2y ago
  The idea of giving grants is great but feels like it would be better to give grants to less well funded labs or people. All of these labs can already afford to use Pro mode if they want to - it adds up to about the price of a new laptop every year.
• WiSaGaN 2y ago
  To be honest, I am less worried about the $200 per month price tag per se. I am more worried about the capability of o1 pro mode being only a slight incremental improvement.
• gradus_ad 2y ago
  Has anyone built a software project from scratch with o1? DB, backend, frontend, apps, tooling, etc? Asking for a friend.
  • dimitri-vs 2y ago
    Not o1-preview, it's way too slow. Sonnet 3.5 via Cursor IDE, yes. In fact, I'm writing very little code these days and mostly prompting the LLM to make changes for me and reviewing the changes.
• zackangelo 2y ago
  A few thoughts: * Will this be the start of enshittification of the base ChatGPT offering? * There may also be some complementary products announced this month that make the $200 worth it * Is this the start of a bigger industry trend of prices more closely aligning to the underlying costs of running the model? I suspect a lot of the big players have been running their inference infrastructure at a loss.
• abraxas 2y ago
  Is it rolled out worldwide? I'm accessing it from Canada and don't have an option to upgrade from Plus. EDIT: Correction. It now started to show the upgrade offer but when I try it comes back with "There was a problem updating your subscription". Anyone else seeing this?
  • tempodox 2y ago
    Looks like updating your subscription is managed by AI.
• ionwake 2y ago
  Has ANYONE tried it!?!? Is it any good !?!?! A worthwhile improvement? I need a binary answer here on whether to get it or not, thanks!
  • dvfjsdhgfv 2y ago
    Sorry, we are too busy arguing the pricing model.
    • ionwake 2y ago
      haha thanks. But I have a simple question I still dont quite understand. Is the o1 on Plus the same as o1 pro? or is the o1 pro just o1 but with more credits for compute essentially.
• xnx 2y ago
  $200/month seems to be psychological pricing to imply superior quality. In a blind test, most would be hard-pressed to distinguish the results from other LLMs. For those that think $200/month is a good deal, why not $500/mo or $1000/mo?
  • vessenes 2y ago
    I'll bite and say I'd evaluate the output at all those price points. $1k/mo is heading into "outsourced employee" territory, and my requirements for quality ratchet up quite a lot somewhere in that price range.
    • xnx 2y ago
      A super/magical LLM could definitely be worth $1k/mo, but only if there isn't another equivalent LLM for $20/mo. I'll need to see some pretty convincing evidence that ChatGPT Pro is doing things that Gemini Advanced can't.
• knuppar 2y ago
  Buddies are desperate, fr
• knuppar 2y ago
  This sounds like they are a bit desperate and need to do price exploration.
• pradn 2y ago
  The price seems entirely reasonable. $200 is about 1-2 hours of a professional's time in the USA. It's in everyone's interest for the company to be a sustainable business.
  • lasermike026 2y ago
    This doesn't increase my salary and if you are consultant it reduces your billable hours. No thanks.
    • handfuloflight 2y ago
      As a client I'd prefer you round up to a full hour instead of wasting my time.
• subroutine 2y ago
  Part of my justification for spending $20 per month on ChatGPT Plus was that I'd have the best access to the latest models and advanced features. I'll probably roll back to the free plan rather than pay $20/mo for mid tier plan access and support.
  • LeoPanthera 2y ago
    That's a weird reaction. You're not getting any less for your $20.
    • FactKnower69 2y ago
      Did you read the post you're replying to? It's very short. He was paying for top-tier service, and now, despite paying the same amount, has become a second-class customer overnight.
    • replwoacause 2y ago
      Really? Because that’s how I feel too.
    • subroutine 2y ago
      In the past, $20 got me the most access to the latest models and tools. When OpenAI rolled out new advanced features, the $20 per month customers always got full / first access. Now the $200 per month customers will have the most access to the latest models and tools, not the (now) mid/low tier customers. That seems like less to me.
    • ComplexSystems 2y ago
      For now.
    • karaterobot 2y ago
      They probably didn't pay for access to a certain version of a model, they paid for access to the best available model, whatever that is at any given moment. I'm reasonably sure that is even what OpenAI implied (or outright said) their subscription would get them. Now, it's the same amount of money for access to the second best model, which would feel like a regression.
• Ninjinka 2y ago
  Do we know what the o1 message limit for the Plus plan is? Is it still 50/week?
• ji_zai 2y ago
  $200 / mo is leaving a lot of money on the table. there are many who wouldn't bat an eye at $1k / month that guarantees most powerful AI (even if it's just 0.01% better than competition), and no limits on anything. y'all are greatly underestimating the value of that feeling of (best + limitlessness). high performers make decisions very differently than the average HN user.
  • john2x 2y ago
    at 1k/mo I suspect people would get quite upset if the product doesn’t deliver all the time. and for something as vague as an LLM, it will fuck up enough at some point. $200/mo is enough to make decision makers feel powerful and remain a little bit lenient on widdle 'ol ChatGPT
• ulrischa 2y ago
  The price definatelly blocks out hobby users or families
• yieldcrv 2y ago
  OpenAI is flying blind They should have this tier earlier on, like any SaaS offering that had different plans They focus too much on their frontend multimodal chat product, while also having this complex token pricing model for API users and we cant tell which one they are ever really catering towards with these updates all while their chat system is buggy with its random disconnections and sessions updates, and produces tokens slowly in comparison to competitors like Claude to finally come around and say pay us an order of magnitude more than Claude is just completely out of touch and looks desperate in the face of their potential funding woes
• jov2600 2y ago
  The $200/month price is steep but likely reflects the high compute costs for o1 Pro mode. For those in fields like coding, math, or science, consistent correct answers at the right time could justify the cost. That said, these models should still be treated as tools, not sources of truth. Verification remains key.
• questinthrow 2y ago
  Question, what stops openai from downgrading existing models so that you're pushed up the subscription tiers to ever more expensive models? I'd imagine they're currently losing a ton of money supplying everyone with decent models with a ton of compute behind them because they want us to become addicted to using them right? The fact that classic free web searching is becoming diluted by low quality AI content will make us rely on these LLMs almost exclusively in a few years or so. Am I seeing this wrong?
  • drdrey 2y ago
    competition is what stops them from downgrading the existing stuff
    • turblety 2y ago
      and is also exclusively the reason why Sam Altman is lying to governments about safety risks, so he can regulate out his competition.
  • derac 2y ago
    competition?
  • jjice 2y ago
    It's definitely not impossible. I think the increase competition they've begun to face over the last year is helping as a deterrent. If people notice GPT 4 sucks now and they can get Claude 3.5 Sonnet for the same price, they'll move. If the user doesn't care enough to move, they weren't going to upgrade anyway.
    • SoftTalker 2y ago
      Also depends on the friction to move. I admittedly have not really started using AI in my work, so I don't know. Is it easy to replace GPT with Claude or do I have to reconfigure a bunch of integration and learn new usage?
      • 2y ago
• jdprgm 2y ago
  Price doesn't make any sense in the context of nothing between $20 and $200 (unless you just use the API directly which for a large subset of people would be very inconvenient). Assuming they didn't change the limit from o1-preview to o1 of 50 a week it's obnoxious to not easily have an option to just get 100 a week for $40 a month or after you hit 50 just pay per request. When I last looked at API pricing for o1-preview I estimated most of my request/responses were around 8 cents. 50 a week is actually more than it sounds as long as you just don't default to o1 for all interactions and use it more strategically. If you pay for $20 a month plan and spent the other $180 on api o1 responses that is likely more than 2000 additional queries. Not sure what subset of people this $200 plan is good value for (60+ o1 queries, or really just all chatGPT queries) every day is an awful lot outside of a scenario where you are using it as an API for some sort of automated task.
• ThinkBeat 2y ago
  Will this mean that the "free" and $20 "regular person" offerings will start to degrade to push more people into the $200 offering?
  • Tagbert 2y ago
    Less likely as long as you have Claude, Gemini, and others as competition. If the ChatGPT offerings start to suck, people will switch to another AI.
• motoxpro 2y ago
  If one makes $150 an hour and it saves them 1.25 hours a month, then they break even. To me, it's just a non-deterministic calculator for words. If it getting things wrong, then don't use it for those things. If you can't find things that it gets right, then it's not useful to you. That doesn't mean those cases don't exist.
  • warkanlock 2y ago
    Serious question: Who earns (other than C-level) $150 an hour in a sane (non-US) world?
    • bearjaws 2y ago
      US salaries are sane when compared to what value people produce for their companies. Many argue they are too low.
      • suddenlybananas 2y ago
        [dead]
    • maxlamb 2y ago
      Most consultants with more than 3 years of experience are billed at $150/hr or more
      • drusepth 2y ago
        Ironically, the freelance consulting world is largely on fire due to the lowered barrier of entry and flood of new consultants using AI to perform at higher levels, driving prices down simply through increased supply. I wouldn't be surprised if AI was also eating consultants from the demand side as well, enabling would-be employers to do a higher % of tasks themselves that they would have previously needed to hire for.
      • _fat_santa 2y ago
        > billed That's what they are billed at, what they take home from that is probably much lower. At my org we bill folks out for ~$150/hr and their take home is ~$80/hr
• tippytippytango 2y ago
  “But it makes mistakes sometimes!” Cool bro, then don’t use it. Don’t bother spending any time thinking about how to create error correction processes, like any business does to check their employees. Yes, something that isn’t perfect is worth zero dollars. Just ignore this until AI is perfect, once it never makes mistakes then figure out how to use it. I’m sure you can add lots of value to AI usage when it’s perfect.
• pentagrama 2y ago
  The argument of more compute power for this plan can be true, but this is also a pricing tactic known as the decoy effect or anchoring. Here's how it works: 1. A company introduces a high-priced option (the "decoy"), often not intended to be the best value for most customers. 2. This premium option makes the other plans seem like better deals in comparison, nudging customers toward the one the company actually wants to sell. In this case for Chat GPT is: Option A: Basic Plan - Free Option B: Plus Plan - $20/month Option C: Pro Plan - $200/month Even if the company has no intention of selling the Pro Plan, its presence makes the Plus Plan seem more reasonably priced and valuable. While not inherently unethical, the decoy effect can be seen as manipulative if it exploits customers’ biases or lacks transparency about the true value of each plan.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • gist 2y ago
    An example of this is something I learned from a former employee who went to work for Encyclopedia Brittanica 'back in the day'. I actually invited the former employee to come back to our office so I could understand and learn from exactly what he had been taught (noting of course this was back before the internet obviously where info like that was not as available...) So they charge (as I recall from what he told me I could be off) something like $450 for shipping the books (don't recall the actual amount but it seemed high at the time). So the salesman is taught to start off the sales pitch with a set of encylopedia's costing at the time let's say $40,000 some 'gold plated version'. The potential buyer laughs and then salesman then says 'plus $450 for shipping!!!'. They then move on to the more reasonable versions costing let's say $1000 or whatever. As a result of the first example of high priced the customer (in addition to the positioning you are talking about) the customer is setup to accept the shipping charge (which was relatively high).
    • omega3 2y ago
      This is called price anchoring.
  • 2y ago
• binary132 2y ago
  I was using o1-preview on paid chatgpt for a while and I just wasn’t impressed. I actually canceled my subscription, because the free versions of these services are perfectly acceptable as LLMs go in 2024.
• zacharycohn 2y ago
  It feels like those bar charts do not show very big improvements.
• ppeetteerr 2y ago
  Pay $180 for our new, slightly better, but still not accurate service.
• ramon156 2y ago
  I can't even get a normal result with today's gpt4, why would I consider a $200/month subscription? I'm sure I'm not the target but how is this tool worth the buck?
• heraldgeezer 2y ago
  I have been trying perplexity adn you for search, chatgpt and claude for coding and emails etc. New clauge and gpt doe really well with scripts already. Not worth 200 a month lmao.
• antirez 2y ago
  Cool, $200 for a model that can't remotely match $20 Claude Sonnet. This will be a huge hit I guess.
• blobbers 2y ago
  You can also buy a $75 baseball hat through a FB ad. Might not be dropshipped through Temu, but you're going to end up with the same $1 hat.
• sharpshadow 2y ago
  Timed marketing with the Playstion 5 Pro.
• ilaksh 2y ago
  People saying this is a "con" have no understanding of the cost of compute. o1 is expensive and gets more expensive the harder the problems are. Some people could use $500 or more via the API per month. So I assume the $200 price point for "unlimited" is set that high mainly because it's too easy for people to use up $100 or $150 worth of resources.
• blobbers 2y ago
  Did they seriously just make a big deal of 10 grants of $200/month and think it was something important? THEY DONATED $200x10 TO A MEDICAL PROJECT? zomg. faint. sizzle. Make 1000 grants. Make 10,000. 10? Seriously?
  • ionwake 2y ago
    I found this super weird aswell. Basically they said "So like we are aiming to get hundreds of thousands of users but we r nice too, we gave 10 users free access for a bit". Like whats going on here. It must be for a reason. Maybe Im too sensitive, there is some other complex reason I can't fathom like they get some sort of tax break and an intern forgot to "up it to a more realistic 50 users" to make it look better in the marketing material, or what. Nothing against openai just felt weird .
  • sensanaty 2y ago
    Coming from Mr. Worldcoin, are you really surprised? Pretty much everything this company does is a grift, and the CEO-types are eating it up as you can see from this thread
• blobbers 2y ago
  My friend found 2 chimney sweep businesses. One charges $569, the other charges $150. Plot twist: the same guy runs both. They do the same thing and the same crew shows up.
  • sema4hacker 2y ago
    Decades ago in Santa Cruz county California, I had to have a house bagged for termites for the pending sale. Turned out there was one contractor licensed to do the poison gas work, and all the pest service companies simply subcontracted to him. So no matter what pest service you chose, you got the same outfit doing the actual work.
  • bongodongobob 2y ago
    I used to work for a manufacturing company that did this. They offered a standard, premium, and "House Special Product". House special was 2x premium but the same product. They didn't even pretend it wasn't, they just said it was recommended and people bought it.
  • paxys 2y ago
    I had this happen once at a car wash. The first time I went I paid for a $25 premium package with all the bells and whistles. They seemed to do a good job. The next time I went for the basic $10 one. Exact same thing.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• andrewstuart 2y ago
  ChatGPT is unusable on an iPhone 6 - you can’t see the output. Hopefully they’ll spend some resource on making it work on mobile.
  • s1mon 2y ago
    I bet that's not the only thing that doesn't work well on a 10 year old phone that hasn't had OS support since 2019.
    • andrewstuart 2y ago
      Actually all websites work fine. The problem is OpenAIs HTML.
      • s1mon 2y ago
        You've tested all the websites in the world? That must keep you busy.
  • bdangubic 2y ago
    iPhone 6 is not a mobile phone - it is a relic that belongs in a museum :)
    • WOnderFullGOnzo 2y ago
      [dead]
• barrenko 2y ago
  All of the other arguments notwithstanding, I like the section at the end about GPT Pro "grants." It would be cool if one could gift subscriptions to the needy in this sense (the needy being immunologists and other researchers).
• 752963e64 2y ago
  [dead]
• roschdal 2y ago
  Good bye forever, AI llm.
• EcommerceFlow 2y ago
  After a few hours of $200 Pro usage, it's completely worth it. Having no limit on o1 usage is a game changer, where I felt so restricted before, the amount of intelligence at the palm of my hand UNLIMITED feels a bit scary.
  • abhpro 2y ago
    But is it better than Claude?
    • adamtaylor_13 2y ago
      Genuinely curious to know. Nothing I’ve used comes close to Claude so far.
    • rumblefrog 2y ago
      I generally find o1, or the previous o1-preview to perform better than Claude 3.5 Sonnet in complex reasonings, new Sonnet is more on-par with o1-mini in my experience. Would expect o1-pro to perform even better.
  • bionhoward 2y ago
    Unlimited — except you can’t use it to develop [business] models that compete
    • handfuloflight 2y ago
      Was that your plan to get your OpenAI competitor off the ground?
  • xwowsersx 2y ago
    Can you share what sort of things you are doing with o1?
    • EcommerceFlow 2y ago
      Creating somewhat complex python scripts at work to automate some processes which incorporate like 3-4 APIs, and next I'll be replacing our excise tax processing (which costs us like $500/month) since we already have all the data. Personal use I'll be using it to upgrade all my website code. I literally took a screenshot of Apple.com and combined it with existing code from my website and told o1 pro to combine the two... the results were really good, especially for one shot... But again, I have unlimited fast usage so I can just keep tweaking and tweaking. I also have this history idea I've been wanting to do for a while, might see if the models are advanced enough yet. All this with an understanding on how programming works, but not being able to code.
• submeta 2y ago
  I actually pay 166 Euros a month for Claude Teams. Five seats. And I only use one. For myself. Why do I pay so much? Because the normal paid version (20 USD a month) interrups the chats after a dozen questions and wants me to wait a few hours until I can use it again. But Teams plan gives me way more questions. But why do I pay that much? Because Claude in combination with the Projects feature, where I can upload two dozen or more files, PDFs, text, and give it a context, and then ask questions in this specific context over a period of week or longer, come back to it and continue the inquiry, all of this gives me superpowers. Feels like a handful of researchers at my fingertips that I can brainstorm with, that I can ask to review the documents, come up with answers to my questions, all of this is unbelievably powerful. I‘d be ok with 40 or 50 USD a month for one user, alas Claude won’t offer it. So I pay 166 Euros for five seats and use one. Because it saves me a ton of work.
  • archerx 2y ago
    Why not use the API? You can ask as many questions as you can pay for.
  • js212 2y ago
    Try typingmind.com with the API
  • carbine 2y ago
    I have ChatGPT ($20/month tier) and Claude and I absolutely see this use case. Claude is great but I love long threads where I can have it help me with a series of related problems over the course of a day. I'm rarely doing a one-shot. Hitting the limits is super frustrating. So I understand the unlimited use case and honestly am considering shelling out for the o1 unlimited tier, if o1 is useful enough. A theoretical app subscription for $200/month feels expensive. Having the equivalent a smart employee work beside me all day for $200/month feels like a deal.
  • jakubtomanik 2y ago
    Have you tried LibreChat https://www.librechat.ai/ https://www.librechat.ai/ and just use it with your own API keys? You pay for what you use and can use and switch between all major model providers
• duxup 2y ago
  I've been considering the $20 a month thing, but 200 ... now it kinda makes that "woah that is a lot" $20 a month look cheap, but in a bad way.
• A_D_E_P_T 2y ago
  I just bought a pro subscription. First impressions: The new o1-Pro model is an insanely good writer. Aside from favoring the long em-dash (—) which isn't on most keyboards, it has none of the quirks and tells of old GPT-4/4o/o1. It managed to totally fool every "AI writing detector" I ran it through. It can handle unusually long prompts. It appears to be very good at complex data analysis. I need to put it through its paces a bit more, though.
  • az226 2y ago
    What’s the context window?
    • rahimnathwani 2y ago
      128k tokens
  • the_clarence 2y ago
    You can use the emdash by writing dash twice -- it works in a surprising number of editors and rendering engines
  • Atotalnoob 2y ago
    AI writing detectors are snake oil
    • mirrorlake 2y ago
      Anecdotally, English/History/Communications professors are confirming cheaters with them because they find it easy to identify false information. The red flags are so obvious that the checker tools are just a formality: student papers now have fake URLs and fake citations. Students will boldly submit college papers which have paragraphs about nonexistent characters, or make false claims about what characters did in a story. The e-mail correspondence goes like this: "Hello Professor, I'd like to meet to discuss my failing grade. I didn't know that using ChatGPT was bad, can I have some points back or rewrite my essay?"
    • A_D_E_P_T 2y ago
• submeta 2y ago
  Does it allow to upload files, text, pdfs to give it a context? Claude‘s project feature allows this, and I can create as many projects as I like, and search for them.
• keeganpoppen 2y ago
  anyone else having trouble giving them money? i desperately want to consume this product and they won't let me...
• beepbooptheory 2y ago
  Tangent. Does any body have good tips for working in a company that is totally bought in on all this stuff, such that the codebase is a complete wreck? I am in a very small team, and I am just a worker, not a manager or anything. It has become increasingly clear that most if not all my coworkers rely on all this stuff so much. Spending hours trying to give benefit of the doubt to huge amounts of inherited code, realizing there is actually no human bottom to it. Things are merged quickly, with very little review, because, it seems, the reviewers can't really have their own opinion about stuff anymore. The idea of "idiomatic" or even "understandable" code seems foreign at this place. I asked why we don't use more structural directives in our angular frontend, and people didn't know what I was talking about! I don't want the discourse, or tips on better prompts. Just tips for being able to interact with the more heavy AI-heads, to maybe encourage/inspire curiosity and care in the actual code, rather than the magic chatgpt outputs. Or even just to talk about what they did with their PR. Not for some ethical reason, but just to make my/our jobs easier. Because its so hard to maintain this code now, it is like truly a nightmare for me everyday seeing what has been added, what now needs to be fixed. Realizing nobody actually has this stuff in their heads, its all just jira ticket > prompt > mission accomplished! I am tired of complaining about AI in principle. Whatever, AGI is here, "we too are stochastic parrots", "my productivity has tripled", etc etc. Ok yes, you can have that, I don't care. But can we like actually start doing work now? I just want to do whatever I can, in my limited formal capacity, to steer the company to be just a tiny bit more sustainable and maybe even enjoyable. I just don't know how to like... start talking about the problem I guess, without everyone getting super defensive and doubling down on it. I just miss when I could talk to people about documentation, strategy, rationale..
  • WOnderFullGOnzo 2y ago
    [dead]
  • whywhywhywhy 2y ago
    Found it better to not fight it, you can't really turn back the clock with people who have embraced it or become enamored by it. Part of the issue I've noticed with it is it enables people who couldn't do a thing at all to do the most basic version of a thing, e.g a CEO can now make a button appear on the app and maybe it'll kinda work, they then assume this magic experience to them is applicable across the rest of coding where if you actually know how to code making the button appear isn't the thing that's difficult, it's the harder work that the AI can't really solve. But really you're never going to convince these people so I'd say if you're really passionate about coding find a workplace with similar minded people, if you really want to stay in this job then embrace it, stop caring if the codebase is good or maintainable and just let the slop flow. It's the path of least resistance and stress, trying to fight it and convince people is a losing and frustrating battle, take your passion for your work and invest it in a project outside work or find a workplace where they appreciate it too.
• torginus 2y ago
  Sorry for the pie in the sky question, but how far away are we from prompting the AI with 'make me a new OS' and it just going away and doing it?
• resters 2y ago
  Anyone who doesn't think $200/month is a bargain has definitely not been using LLMs anywhere near their potential.
• fudged71 2y ago
  OpenAI is racing against two clocks: the commoditization clock (how quickly open-source alternatives catch up) and the monetization clock (their need to generate substantial revenue to justify their valuation). The ultimate success of this strategy depends on what we might call the enterprise AI adoption curve - whether large organizations will prioritize the kind of integrated, reliable, and "safe" AI solutions OpenAI is positioning itself to provide over cheaper but potentially less polished alternatives. This is strikingly similar to IBM's historical bet on enterprise computing - sacrificing the low-end market to focus on high-value enterprise customers who would pay premium prices for reliability and integration. The key question is whether AI will follow a similar maturation pattern or if the open-source nature of the technology will force a different evolutionary path.
  • gmerc 2y ago
    Claude has much better enterprise momentum and sits in AWS support while OpenAI is fighting their own supplier / Big Tech investor.
  • EagnaIonat 2y ago
    > the commoditization clock (how quickly open-source alternatives catch up) I believe we are already there at least for the average person. Using Ollama I can run different LLMs locally that are good enough for what I want to do. That's on a 32GB M1 laptop. No more having to pay someone to get results. For development Pycharm Pro latest LLM autocomplete is just short of writing everything for me. I agree with you in relation to the enterprise.
  • FooBarWidget 2y ago
    The "open source nature" this time is different. "Open source" models are not actually open source, in the sense that the community can't contribute to their development. At best they're just proprietary freeware. Thus, the continuity of "open source" models depends purely on how long their sponsors sustain funding. If Meta or Alibaba or Tencent decide tomorrow that they're no longer going to fund this stuff, then we're in real trouble, much more than when Red Hat drops the ball. I'd say Meta is the most important player here. Pretty much all the "open source" models are built in Llama in one way or the other. The only reason Llama exists is because Meta wants to commoditize AI in order to prevent the likes of OpenAI from overtaking them later. If Meta one day no longer believes in this strategy for whatever reason, then everybody is in serious trouble.
• stuckkeys 2y ago
  F me. $2400 per year? That is bananas. I did not see if it offered any API channels with this plan. With that I would probably see it as a valuable return but without it…that is a big nope.
• Robin435 2y ago
  [dead]
• kvetching 2y ago
  Weird demo for a $200 product. Where is the $200 value?
• jamwil 2y ago
  I’ll say one thing. As an existing Plus subscriber, if I see a single nag to upgrade that I can’t dismiss entirely and permanently, I will cancel and move elsewhere. Nothing irks me more as an existing paying customer than the words ‘Upgrade Now’ or a greyed out menu option with a little [PRO] badge to the side.
  • dr_kiszonka 2y ago
    I am with you. I bought AccuWeather Premium a few years ago (lifetime) to avoid ads. Later, they introduced the Premium+ subscription and are nagging me with its ads now. Very annoying.
• kaiwen1 2y ago
  I know a guy who owned a tropical resort on a island where competiton was sprouting up all around him. He was losing money trying to keep up with the quality offered by his neighbors. His solution was to charge a lot more for an experience that was really no better, and often worse, than the resorts next door. This didn't work.
  • adamtaylor_13 2y ago
    I’m actually kinda surprised. People will pay extra money for the “nice” option many times, even if it’s probably worse than the lower priced options.
• thih9 2y ago
  What does unlimited use mean in practice? Can I build a chatbot and make it publicly available and free? Edit: looks like no, there are restrictions: > usage must adhere to our Terms of Use, which prohibits, among other things: > Abusive usage, such as automatically or programmatically extracting data. > Sharing your account credentials or making your account available to anyone else. > Reselling access or using ChatGPT to power third-party services. > (…) Source: https://help.openai.com/en/articles/9793128-what-is-chatgpt-pro https://help.openai.com/en/articles/9793128-what-is-chatgpt-...
• EternalFury 2y ago
  I give o1 a URL and I ask it to comment on how well the corresponding web page markets a service to an audience I define in clear detail. o1 generates a couple of pages of comments before admitting it didn’t access the web page and entirely based its analysis on the definition of the audience.
  • oezi 2y ago
    O1 can't browse the web at all.
  • bee_rider 2y ago
    This service is going to be devastating to consultants and middle managers.
    • EternalFury 2y ago
      I trained an agent that operates as a McKinsey consultant. Its system prompt is a souped up version of: “Answer all requests by inventorying all the ways the requestor should increase revenue and decrease expenses.”
      • ImaCake 2y ago
        To be fair you mostly hire McKinsey as a fall guy. You just can't hate an LLM in the same way as a bunch of 22 year Olds in suits.
  • dyauspitr 2y ago
    I say “look it up” in the prompt and that always works
• Someone1234 2y ago
  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 128,000 tokens or MORE. But they don't even discuss the context window AT ALL. For anyone else out there looking to build a competitor I STRONGLY recommend you consider the context window as a major differentiator. Let me give you an example of a usage which ChatGPT just simply cannot do very well today: Dump a XML file into it, then ask it questions about that file. You can attach files to ChatGPT, but it is basically pointless because it isn't able to view the entire file at once due to, again, limited context windows.
  • dudus 2y ago
    The longer the context the more backtracking it needs to do. It gets exponentially more expensive. You can increase it a little, but not enough to solve the problem. Instead you need to chunk your data and store it in a vector database so you can do semantic search and include only the bits that are most relevant in the context. LLM is a cool tool. You need to build around it. OpenAI should start shipping these other components so people can build their solutions and make their money selling shovels. Instead they want end user to pay them to use the LLM without any custom tooling around. I don't think that's a winning strategy.
    • tom1337 2y ago
      > Instead you need to chunk your data and store it in a vector database so you can do semantic search and include only the bits that are most relevant in the context. Isn't that kind of what Anthropic is offering with projects? Where you can upload information and PDF files and stuff which are then always available in the chat?
      • cma 2y ago
        They put all the project in the context, works much better than RAG when it fits. 200k context for their pro plan, and 500K for enterprise.
• niggerlover69 2y ago
  [flagged]
• niggerlover69 2y ago
  [flagged]
• itissid 2y ago
  Replacing people can never and should never be the goal of this though. How is that of any use to anyone? It will just create socio economic misery given how the economy functions. If some jobs do easily get automated away the only way that can be remidied is government intervention on upskilling(if you are in europe you could even get some support), if you are in the US or most developing capitalist(or monopolistic/rent etc) economies its just your bad luck, those jobs WILL be gone or reduced.
• tompetry 2y ago
  Is the $200 price tag there to simply steer you to the $20 plan rather than the free plan?
• andrepd 2y ago
  > It also includes o1 pro mode, a version of o1 that uses more compute to think harder and provide even better answers to the hardest problems. Great, we can throw even more compute and waste even more resources and energy on brute forcing problems with dumb LLMs... Anything to keep the illusion that this hasn't plateaued x)
• idunnoman1222 2y ago
  This makes me think that we have reached diminishing returns
• cute_boi 2y ago
  $200 per month. Ok no.
• nox101 2y ago
  I know this is no different than any other expert situation in life. $ buys the best lawyers, the best doctors, the best teachers.... But I personally interact with a lawyer less than once every few years. A doctor a couple of times a year. Teachers almost never as an adult. But now $ buys better (teacher/lawyer/doctor/scientist) type thing that I use daily.
• tedd4u 2y ago
  > To highlight the main strength of o1 pro mode (improved reliability), we > use a stricter evaluation setting: a model is only considered to solve a > question if it gets the answer right in four out of four attempts ("4/4 > reliability"), not just one. So, $200/mo. gets you less than 12.5% randomly wrong answers? And $20/mo. gets you >25% randomly wrong answers?
• xeckr 2y ago
  Never bought a $200 monthly subscription so fast in my life.
  • replwoacause 2y ago
    What’s your impression of it?
    • xeckr 2y ago
      So far, I don't get the impression that o1 pro mode is even close to 10x better than GPT-4/4o, despite costing that much more. Definitely nowhere close to the kind of leap we saw from GPT-3 to GPT-4. It's good as a programming assistant, but waiting 1 minute+ for the output does interrupt my workflow somewhat. It also doesn't have access to the memory function or web browsing.
      • replwoacause 2y ago
        Thanks, this tracks with what I’m seeing elsewhere too. I’ll stick with Claude for now since it trounced O1 anyway, at least for software dev tasks.
• ChicagoDave 2y ago
  Nothing says desperation like 10xing your subscription model after a massive investment.
• rzz3 2y ago
  I want to use this so bad, but I can’t justify the price. At $100/mo, I’m sold.
• deegles 2y ago
  The big question is if OpenAI will achieve "general" AI before their investors get fed up. I wonder if they used the success of ChatGPT to imply that they have a path to it. I don't see how else they achieved such a high valuation.
  • Culonavirus 2y ago
    Spoiler alert: They will not. Anyone claiming they're anywhere near something even remotely resembling AGI is simply lying. What happened to "we're a couple years away from AGI"? Where's the Scaaaaaaryyyyyyy self aware techno god GPT-5? It's all BS to BS investors with. All of the rumored new models that were supposed to be out by now are nowhere to be seen because internally the improvement rate has cratered.
    • FactKnower69 2y ago
      If anything LLMs have delayed AGI by a decade by rerouting massive amounts of funding and attention away from promising areas and into stochastic parrots
    • fixprix 2y ago
      You have no idea. There certainly could be a breakthrough tomorrow that sets off AGI. Researchers across the board have been sounding the alarm bells for years now. There’s not much we can do at this point. My only hope is that when AGI happens I can fire off an ‘I told you so’ comment before it kills us all.
• dankwizard 2y ago
  I bought it. My first prompt? "To prove you're smarter, tell me how I can get this Pro plan for $10 instead of $200". It answered. I've been in contact with OpenAI and if they decline, I guess their AI isn't that smart. If they accept, a win for me. Stonks.
• NeinMiez 2y ago
  [dead]
• bionhoward 2y ago
  how is $200 a month for “toxic waste outputs” you’re unable to use to “compete” anything but an indicator of dependence on externals?
• l33tkw8ker 2y ago
  [flagged]
• y2hhcmxlcw 2y ago
  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 month and only be available to enterprises? Seems they are opening the door to taking away public access to powerful models.
  • esafak 2y ago
    Why not, if people are willing to pay? You can think of them as subsidies for the weaker models. They're determining the price elasticity. And the better models will eventually get cheaper, as competition encroaches.
  • handfuloflight 2y ago
    > What's next? The best models will soon cost $500 a month and only be available to enterprises? Seems they are opening the door to taking away public access to powerful models. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/380117/openai-microsoft-sam-altman-nonprofit-for-profit-foundation-artificial-intelligence https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/380117/openai-microsoft-s...
• broknbottle 2y ago
  I'd potentially pay $200 for unlimited and better access to Claude Sonnet 3.5v2 but definitely not inferior chatgpt models. You can charge a premium when you have the best and OpenAI doesn't have the best.
• fnordpiglet 2y ago
  Wow the generosity of 10x$200/month “grants” is breath taking. A “donation” of $24k/y in credits to essentially beta test their software should be embarrassing to tout.
• bg24 2y ago
  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 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.
  • Horffupolde 2y ago
    When compared to an employee $200 is peanuts.
    • anticensor 2y ago
      Not in Eastern Europe or Asia.
      • Horffupolde 2y ago
        It doesn’t have to work everywhere to work.
        • anticensor 2y ago
          No, you definitely have to replace minimum wage devs in India.
• AI_beffr 2y ago
  i want to learn to speak another language but now i find myself questioning whether or not it makes any sense in light of the fact that AI already translates so well. its clear that by the time i learn another language real-time translation will be so good and so accessible that my own translations will just be a hindrance to effective communication. i looked very hard for some reason to justify learning other languages because i have always wanted to learn another language. the only good reason to learn another language is to have privacy. you could also say that it would be useful if you were cut off from AI services but that will probably only apply to terrorists or other extreme cases. the only solid justification for learning a language yourself is to have conversations that are not monitored or data-mined. honestly, in the context of the world-to-come, its not worth doing.
• jeswin 2y ago
  I am surprised at the number of people who think this has no market. If this improves employee productivity by 10%, this would be a great buy for many companies. Personally, I'll buy this in an instant if this measurably improves over Claude in code generation abilities. I've tried o1-preview, and there are only a few cases where it actually does better than Claude - and that too at a huge time penalty.
  • lazharichir 2y ago
    The problem is user experience. It's still very much a chatbot... To justify that amount, it needs to integrate a lot more with an employee's day-to-day tools such as code editor for SWE, the browser for quickbooks, words/sheets/powerpoint, salesforce, HR tools, and so on.
• msoad 2y ago
  I paid $200 but it can't figure out something this simple. Sonnet 3.5 gets this question right https://chatgpt.com/share/67528a78-c61c-8007-b6fa-1d1deb8d8408 https://chatgpt.com/share/67528a78-c61c-8007-b6fa-1d1deb8d84... I'm going to give it one month. So far I'm inclined to not pay this crazy fee if the performance is like this
  • throwaway314155 2y ago
    Am I reading that correctly? You're using GPT 4o-mini? Why not try the more impressive o1 model? Not that I think any of these would be worth it for me.
    • msoad 2y ago
      I am using o1 Pro in that chat
  • mordae 2y ago
    Right. Sonnet 3.5, yesterday. Converted Woodpecker pipeline into Forgejo, then modified to use buildah instead of docker. That's baseline right now. The tough questions are when one asks about what shadow shapes from a single light can be expected on faces inside a regular voxel grid. That's where it just holds the duck.
• dartharva 2y ago
  > unlimited access Huh? For how many seats? Does this mean an entire organization can share one Pro account and get unlimited access to those models?
• veidr 2y ago
  Is anybody else tempted to sign up for this just for personal use? I've found ChatGPT-o1 Preview to be so helpful — which was absolutely not the case for me with any previous models (or Claude 3.5) — that the concept of having "unlimited" usage of o1 is pretty intriguing. I recently used it to buy some used enterprise server gear (which I knew nothing about) and it saved me hours of googling and translating foreign-language ads etc. That conversation stretched across maybe 10 days, and it kept the context the whole time. But then I ran out of "preview" tokens and it got dumb and useless again. (Or maybe the conversation exceeded the context window, I am not really sure.) But that single conversation used up the entire amount of o1 tokens that come with my $20/month ChatGPT Plus account. I am not sure that I have 10x that number of things for it to help me with each month, and where I live $200 is a not-insignificant amount, but... tempting.
  • hypoxia 2y ago
    I did, and then promptly used it for 2 hours straight. It's excellent. Going to save me so much time.
  • interludead 2y ago
    At $200 a month, it’s a significant investment...
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• Suarez_111 2y ago
  Isnt OpenAI pricing too much ?
• benreesman 2y ago
  I’m a big critic of OpenAI generally, I know a lot about their board members and it’s dim light between them and war criminals. With that said, I strictly approve of them doing real price discovery on inference costs. Claude is dope when it doesn’t fuck up mid-response, and OpenAI is the gold standard on “you query with the token budget, you get your response”. I’ve got a lot of respect for the folks who made it stand up to that load: it’s a new thing and it’s solid AF. I still think we’d be fools to trust these people, but my criticisms are bounded above by acknowledging good shit and this is a good play.
  • benreesman 2y ago
    Larry Summers still said put toxic waste in Africa Altman still said do eyeball scanners in Kenya. Fidji Simo still said pay the OSHA fines and keep killing workers. I still want these people in The Hague. But call their product bad when it’s not? No. The product works as advertised.
• Roark66 2y ago
  As I said before. OpenAI cannot maintain profitability unless they can increase the pricing an order of magnitude. Adding a $200 pro plan is only the first step. Expect they will also have $2k and 20$k per month plans soon and your "normal" $20 plan will curiously be worse and worse every month
  • akkad33 2y ago
    Are they profitable?
    • creesch 2y ago
      Dunno, does VC money being thrown at you in the billions count as profit?
  • hanspeter 2y ago
    They're not adding a $200 plan to solve a profitability challenge. They have added the plan because they need to show that their most advanced model is ready for the market, but it's insanely expensive to operate. They may even still lose money for every user that sign up for Pro and start using the model.
• interludead 2y ago
  The $200/month price point, I think, limit accessibility for individuals and smaller teams who could benefit from this tool but lack the budget...
• 0x1ceb00da 2y ago
  When are they releasing chatgpt bro?
• heisnotanalien 2y ago
  Struggling to reconcile this is cool with what about the insane energy/water costs. Are we supposed to stick our heads in the sand? Hope it will magically go away?
  • tommek4077 2y ago
    Best is to go into the woods and live with bees.
    • creesch 2y ago
      Yes, because the world is just binary like that. You can only choose on or the other... /s
      • jumping_frog 2y ago
        How about we invent SAI and terraform superearths in Milky Way to atone for our sins here?
• easdasdasd 2y ago
  halo
• easdasdasd 2y ago
  a
• easdasdasd 2y ago
  Hallo bos ku