3 ms·

> In other words, it's a con. A con like that wouldn't last very long. This is for people who rely enough on ChatGPT Pro features that it becomes worth it. Wh

> In other words, it's a con. A con like that wouldn't last very long. This is for people who rely enough on ChatGPT Pro features that it becomes worth it. Whether they pay for it because they're freelance, or their employer does. Just because an LLM doesn't boost your productivity, doesn't mean it doesn't for people in other lines of work. Whether LLM's help you at your work is extremely domain-dependent.

matteoraso 2y ago
>Whether LLM's help you at your work is extremely domain-dependent. I really doubt that, actually. The only thing that LLMs are truly good for is to create plausible-sounding text. Everything else, like generating facts, is outside of its main use case and known to frequently fail.
- rusticpenn 2y ago
  I use llms to do most of my dunki work.
- tiahura 2y ago
  LLMs have become indispensable for many attorneys. I know many other professionals that have been able to offload dozens of hours of work per month to ChatGPT and Claude.
  - PittleyDunkin 2y ago
    What on earth is this work that they're doing that's so resilient to the fallible nature of LLMs? Is it just document search with a RAG?
    - tiahura 2y ago
      Everything. Drafting correspondence, pleadings discovery, discovery responses. Reviewing all of the same. Reviewing depositions, drafting deposition outlines. Everything that is “word processing,” and that’s a lot.
      - PittleyDunkin 2y ago
        Well that's terrifying. Good luck to them.
        wing-_-nuts 2y ago
        To be honest, much of contract law is formal boilerplate. I can understand why they'd want to move their role to 'review' instead of 'generate'
        drdaeman 2y ago
        So, instead of fixing the issue (legal documents becoming a barely manageable mess) they’re investing money into making it… even worse? This world is so messed up.
        randallsquared 2y ago
        They have no lever with which to fix the issue.
        Terr_ 2y ago
        Arguably the same problem is occurs in programming: Anything so formulaic and common that an LLM can regurgitate it with a decent level of reliability... is something that ought to have been folded into method/library already. Or it already exists in some howto documentation, but nobody wanted to skim the documentation.
        PittleyDunkin 2y ago
        Why not just move over to forms with structured input?
  - bad_haircut72 2y ago
    Yeah the industries LLMs will disrupt the most are the ones who gatekeep busywork. SWE falls into this to some degree but other professions are more guilty than us. They dont replace intelligence they just surface jobs which never really required much intelligence to begin with.
  - sebastiennight 2y ago
    As a customer of legal work for 20 years, it is also way (way way) faster and cheaper to draft a contract with Claude (total work ~1 hour, even with complex back-and-forth ; you don't want to try to one-shot it in a single prompt) and then pay a law firm their top dollar-per-hour consulting to review/amend the contract (you can get to the final version in a day). Versus the old way of asking them to write the contract, where they'll blatantly re-use some boilerplate (sometimes the name of a previous client's company will still be in there) and then take 2 weeks to get back to you with Draft #1, charging 10x as much.
    - cj 2y ago
      Good law firms won’t charge you for using their boilerplates, only the time to customize it for your use case. I anlways ask our lawyer whether or not they have a boilerplate when I need a contract written up. They usually do.
      - sebastiennight 2y ago
        That's interesting. I've never had a law firm be straightforward about the (obvious) fact they'll be using a boilerplate. I've even found that when lawyers send a document for one of my companies, and I give them a list of things to fix, including e.g. typos, the same typos will be in there if we need a similar document a year later for another company (because, well, nobody updated the boilerplate) Do you ask about the boilerplate before or after you ask for a quote?
        cj 2y ago
        I typically don’t ask for a quote upfront since they are very fair with their business and billing practices. I could definitely see a large law firm (Orrick, Venable, Cooley, Fenwick) doing what you describe. I’ve worked with 2 firms just listed, and their billing practices were ridiculous. I’ve had a lot more success (quality and price) working with boutique law firms, where your point of contact is always a partner instead of your account permanently being pawned off to an associate. Email is in profile if you want an intro to the law firm I use. Great boutique firm based in Bay Area and extremely good price/quality/value.
  - jprd 2y ago
    I bet they still charge for all the hours though.
- TeMPOraL 2y ago
  That opinion made sense two years ago. It's plain weird to still hold it today.
  - JoshTriplett 2y ago
    There was a study recently that made it clear the use of LLMs for coding assistance made people feel more productive but actually made them less productive. EDIT: Added links. https://www.cio.com/article/3540579/devs-gaining-little-if-anything-from-ai-coding-assistants.html https://www.cio.com/article/3540579/devs-gaining-little-if-a... https://web.archive.org/web/20241205204237/https://llmreporter.com/posts/the-reality-of-ai-coding-assistants-are-they-helping-or-hindering-developers/ https://web.archive.org/web/20241205204237/https://llmreport... (Archive link because the llmreporter site seems to have an expired TLS certificate at the moment.) No improvement to PR throughput or merge time, 41% more bugs, worse work-life balance...
    - mkl 2y ago
      Do you have a link? I'm not finding it by searching.
    - grogenaut 2y ago
      I recently slapped 3 different 3 page sql statements and their obscure errors with no line or context references from Redshift into Claude, it was 3 for 3 on telling me where in my query I was messing up. Saved me probably 5 minutes each time but really saved me from moving to a different task and coming back. So around $100 in value right there. I was impressed by it. I wish the query UI I was using just auto-ran it when I got an error. I should code that up as an extension.
      - mdtancsa 2y ago
        I am in a similar same boat. Its way more correct than not for the tasks I give it. For simple queries about, say, CLI tools I dont use that often, or regex formulations, I find it handy as when it gives the answer Its easy to test if its right or not. If it gets it wrong, I work with Claude to get to the right answer.
gwervc 2y ago
> A con like that wouldn't last very long. That's not a problem. OpenAI need to get some cash from its product because the competition is intense from free models. Moreover, since they supposedly used most of the web content and pirated whatever else they could, improvements in training will likely be only incremental. All the while, after the wow effect passed, more people start to realize the flaw in generative AI. So current hype, like all hype, as a limited shelf life and companies need to cash out now because it could be never.
- mikae1 2y ago
  A con? It's not that $200 is a con, their whole existence is a con. They're bleeding money and are desperately looking for a business model to survive. It's not going very well. Zitron[1] (among others) has outlined this. > OpenAI's monthly revenue hit $300 million in August, and the company expects to make $3.7 billion in revenue this year (the company will, as mentioned, lose $5 billion anyway), yet the company says that it expects to make $11.6 billion in 2025 and $100 billion by 2029, a statement so egregious that I am surprised it's not some kind of financial crime to say it out loud. […] At present, OpenAI makes $225 million a month — $2.7 billion a year — by selling premium subscriptions to ChatGPT. To hit a revenue target of $11.6 billion in 2025, OpenAI would need to increase revenue from ChatGPT customers by 310%.[1] Surprise surprise, they just raised the price. [1] https://www.wheresyoured.at/oai-business/ https://www.wheresyoured.at/oai-business/
  - luma 2y ago
    They haven’t raised the price, they have added new models to the existing tier with better performance at the same price. They have also added a new, even higher performance model which can leverage test time compute to scale performance if you want to pay for that GPU time. This is no different than AWS offering some larger ec2 instance tier with more resources and a higher price tag than existing tiers.
    - echelon 2y ago
      They're throwing products at the wall to see what sticks. They're trying to rapidly morph from a research company into a product company. Models are becoming a commodity. It's game theory. Every second place company (eg. Meta) or nation (eg. China) is open sourcing its models to destroy value that might accrete to the competition. China alone has contributed a ton of SOTA and novel foundation models (eg. Hunyuan).
shortrounddev2 2y ago
Overcharging for a product to make it seem better than it really is has served apple well for decades
- crazygringo 2y ago
  That's a tired trope that simply isn't true. Does Apple charge a premium? Of course. Do Apple products also tend to have better construction, greater reliability, consistent repair support, and hold their resale value better? Yes. The idea that people are buying Apple because of the Apple premium simply doesn't hold up to any scrutiny. It's demonstrably not a Verblen good.
  - shortrounddev2 2y ago
    > consistent repair support The lack of repairability is easily Apple's worst quality. They do everything in their power to prevent you from repairing devices by yourself or via 3rd party shops. When you take it to them to repair, they often will charge you more than the cost of a new device. People buy apple devices for a variety of reasons; some people believe in a false heuristic that Apple devices are good for software engineering. Others are simply teenagers who don't want to be the poor kid in school with an Android. Conspicuous consumption is a large part of Apple's appeal.
  - Draiken 2y ago
    Here in Brazil Apple is very much all about showing off how rich you are. Especially since we have some of the most expensive Apple products in the world. Maybe not as true in the US, but reading about the green bubble debacle, it's also a lot about status.
    - vbezhenar 2y ago
      Same in Kazakhstan. It's all about status. Many poor persons get a credit to buy iPhones, because they want to look rich.
  - windexh8er 2y ago
omarhaneef 2y ago
I think this is probably right but so far it seems that the areas in which an LLM is most effective do fine with the lower power models. Example: the 4o or Claude are great for coding, summarizing and rewriting emails. So which domains require a slightly better model? I suppose if the error rate in code or summary goes down even 10%, it might be worth $180/month.
- ducttapecrown 2y ago
  I bet users won't pay for the power, but for a guarantee of access! I always hear about people running out of compute time for ChatGPT. Obvious answer is charge more for a higher quality service.
- vbezhenar 2y ago
  Few days ago I had issue with IPsec VPN behind NAT. I spend few hours Googling around, tinkering with system, I had some rough understanding of what goes wrong, but not much and I had no idea how to solve this issue. I made a very exhaustive question to ChatGPT o1-preview, including all information I though is relevant. Something like good forums question. Well, 10 seconds later it spew me a working solution. I was ashamed, because I have 20 years of experience under my belt and this model solved non-trivial task much better than me. I was ashamed but at the same time that's a superpower. And I'm ready to pay $200 to get solid answers that I just can't get in a reasonable timeframe.
  - gedy 2y ago
    It is really great when it works, but challenge is I've had it sometimes not understanding a detailed programming question and it confidently gives an incorrect answer. Going back and forth a few times ends up clear it really does not know answer, but I end up going in circles. I know LLMs can't really tell you "sorry I don't know this one", but I wish they could.
  - BOOSTERHIDROGEN 2y ago
    The exhaustive question makes ChatGPT reconstruct your answer in real-time, while all you need to do is sleep; your brain will construct the answer and deliver it tomorrow morning.
pera 2y ago
> A con like that wouldn't last very long. The NFT market lasted for many years and was enormous. Never underestimate the power of hype.
taco_emoji 2y ago
> A con like that wouldn't last very long. Bernie Madoff ran his investment fund as a Ponzi scheme for over a decade (perhaps several decades)
john-radio 2y ago
A better way to express it than a "con" is that it's a price-framing device. It's like listing a watch at an initial value of $2,000 so that people will feel content to buy it at $400.
- jl6 2y ago
  That sounds like a con to me too.
  - xanderlewis 2y ago
    The line between ‘con’ and ‘genuine value synthesised in the eye of the buyer using nothing but marketing’ is very thin. If people are happy, they are happy.
px1999 2y ago
Imo the con is picking the metric that makes others look artificially bad when it doesn't seem to be all that different (at least on the surface) > we use a stricter evaluation setting: a model is only considered to solve a question if it gets the answer right in four out of four attempts ("4/4 reliability"), not just one This surely makes the other models post smaller numbers. I'd be curious how it stacks up if doing eg 1/1 attempt or 1/4 attempts.
mrandish 2y ago
> ... or their employer does. I suspect this is a key driver behind having a higher priced, individual user offering. It gives pricing latitude for enterprise volume licenses.
ben_w 2y ago
> A con like that wouldn't last very long As someone who has both repeatedly written that I value the better LLMs as if they were a paid intern (so €$£1000/month at least), and yet who gets so much from the free tier* that I won't bother paying for a subscription: I've seen quite a few cases where expensive non-functional things that experts demonstrate don't work, keep making money. My mum was very fond of homeopathic pills and Bach flower tinctures, for example. * 3.5 was competent enough to write a WebUI for the API so I've got the fancy stuff anyway as PAYG when I want it.
spaceman_2020 2y ago
HN has been just such an awful place to discuss AI. Everyone here is convinced its a grift, a con, and we're all "marks" Just zero curiosity, only skepticism.
999900000999 2y ago
Ok. Let's say I run a company call AndSoft. AndSoft has about 2000 people on staff, maybe 1000 programers. This solution will cost 200k per year. Or 2.4 million per year. Llama3 is effectively free with some liberation. Is ChatGPT pro 2.4 million a year better than Llama3. Of course Open AI will offer volume discounts. I imagine if I was making north of 500k a year I'd subscribe as a curiosity... At least for a few months. If your time is worth 250$ a hour, and this saves you an hour per month it's well worth it.
newsclues 2y ago
Maybe not very long, but long enough is plausible.

matteoraso 2y ago

>Whether LLM's help you at your work is extremely domain-dependent. I really doubt that, actually. The only thing that LLMs are truly good for is to create plausible-sounding text. Everything else, like generating facts, is outside of its main use case and known to frequently fail.

rusticpenn 2y ago
I use llms to do most of my dunki work.
tiahura 2y ago
LLMs have become indispensable for many attorneys. I know many other professionals that have been able to offload dozens of hours of work per month to ChatGPT and Claude.
- PittleyDunkin 2y ago
  What on earth is this work that they're doing that's so resilient to the fallible nature of LLMs? Is it just document search with a RAG?
  - tiahura 2y ago
    Everything. Drafting correspondence, pleadings discovery, discovery responses. Reviewing all of the same. Reviewing depositions, drafting deposition outlines. Everything that is “word processing,” and that’s a lot.
    - PittleyDunkin 2y ago
      Well that's terrifying. Good luck to them.
      - wing-_-nuts 2y ago
        To be honest, much of contract law is formal boilerplate. I can understand why they'd want to move their role to 'review' instead of 'generate'
        drdaeman 2y ago
        So, instead of fixing the issue (legal documents becoming a barely manageable mess) they’re investing money into making it… even worse? This world is so messed up.
        randallsquared 2y ago
        They have no lever with which to fix the issue.
        Terr_ 2y ago
        Arguably the same problem is occurs in programming: Anything so formulaic and common that an LLM can regurgitate it with a decent level of reliability... is something that ought to have been folded into method/library already. Or it already exists in some howto documentation, but nobody wanted to skim the documentation.
        PittleyDunkin 2y ago
        Why not just move over to forms with structured input?
- bad_haircut72 2y ago
  Yeah the industries LLMs will disrupt the most are the ones who gatekeep busywork. SWE falls into this to some degree but other professions are more guilty than us. They dont replace intelligence they just surface jobs which never really required much intelligence to begin with.
- sebastiennight 2y ago
  As a customer of legal work for 20 years, it is also way (way way) faster and cheaper to draft a contract with Claude (total work ~1 hour, even with complex back-and-forth ; you don't want to try to one-shot it in a single prompt) and then pay a law firm their top dollar-per-hour consulting to review/amend the contract (you can get to the final version in a day). Versus the old way of asking them to write the contract, where they'll blatantly re-use some boilerplate (sometimes the name of a previous client's company will still be in there) and then take 2 weeks to get back to you with Draft #1, charging 10x as much.
  - cj 2y ago
    Good law firms won’t charge you for using their boilerplates, only the time to customize it for your use case. I anlways ask our lawyer whether or not they have a boilerplate when I need a contract written up. They usually do.
    - sebastiennight 2y ago
      That's interesting. I've never had a law firm be straightforward about the (obvious) fact they'll be using a boilerplate. I've even found that when lawyers send a document for one of my companies, and I give them a list of things to fix, including e.g. typos, the same typos will be in there if we need a similar document a year later for another company (because, well, nobody updated the boilerplate) Do you ask about the boilerplate before or after you ask for a quote?
      - cj 2y ago
        I typically don’t ask for a quote upfront since they are very fair with their business and billing practices. I could definitely see a large law firm (Orrick, Venable, Cooley, Fenwick) doing what you describe. I’ve worked with 2 firms just listed, and their billing practices were ridiculous. I’ve had a lot more success (quality and price) working with boutique law firms, where your point of contact is always a partner instead of your account permanently being pawned off to an associate. Email is in profile if you want an intro to the law firm I use. Great boutique firm based in Bay Area and extremely good price/quality/value.
- jprd 2y ago
  I bet they still charge for all the hours though.
TeMPOraL 2y ago
That opinion made sense two years ago. It's plain weird to still hold it today.
- JoshTriplett 2y ago
  There was a study recently that made it clear the use of LLMs for coding assistance made people feel more productive but actually made them less productive. EDIT: Added links. https://www.cio.com/article/3540579/devs-gaining-little-if-anything-from-ai-coding-assistants.html https://www.cio.com/article/3540579/devs-gaining-little-if-a... https://web.archive.org/web/20241205204237/https://llmreporter.com/posts/the-reality-of-ai-coding-assistants-are-they-helping-or-hindering-developers/ https://web.archive.org/web/20241205204237/https://llmreport... (Archive link because the llmreporter site seems to have an expired TLS certificate at the moment.) No improvement to PR throughput or merge time, 41% more bugs, worse work-life balance...
  - mkl 2y ago
    Do you have a link? I'm not finding it by searching.
  - grogenaut 2y ago
    I recently slapped 3 different 3 page sql statements and their obscure errors with no line or context references from Redshift into Claude, it was 3 for 3 on telling me where in my query I was messing up. Saved me probably 5 minutes each time but really saved me from moving to a different task and coming back. So around $100 in value right there. I was impressed by it. I wish the query UI I was using just auto-ran it when I got an error. I should code that up as an extension.
    - mdtancsa 2y ago
      I am in a similar same boat. Its way more correct than not for the tasks I give it. For simple queries about, say, CLI tools I dont use that often, or regex formulations, I find it handy as when it gives the answer Its easy to test if its right or not. If it gets it wrong, I work with Claude to get to the right answer.

gwervc 2y ago

> A con like that wouldn't last very long. That's not a problem. OpenAI need to get some cash from its product because the competition is intense from free models. Moreover, since they supposedly used most of the web content and pirated whatever else they could, improvements in training will likely be only incremental. All the while, after the wow effect passed, more people start to realize the flaw in generative AI. So current hype, like all hype, as a limited shelf life and companies need to cash out now because it could be never.

mikae1 2y ago
A con? It's not that $200 is a con, their whole existence is a con. They're bleeding money and are desperately looking for a business model to survive. It's not going very well. Zitron[1] (among others) has outlined this. > OpenAI's monthly revenue hit $300 million in August, and the company expects to make $3.7 billion in revenue this year (the company will, as mentioned, lose $5 billion anyway), yet the company says that it expects to make $11.6 billion in 2025 and $100 billion by 2029, a statement so egregious that I am surprised it's not some kind of financial crime to say it out loud. […] At present, OpenAI makes $225 million a month — $2.7 billion a year — by selling premium subscriptions to ChatGPT. To hit a revenue target of $11.6 billion in 2025, OpenAI would need to increase revenue from ChatGPT customers by 310%.[1] Surprise surprise, they just raised the price. [1] https://www.wheresyoured.at/oai-business/ https://www.wheresyoured.at/oai-business/
- luma 2y ago
  They haven’t raised the price, they have added new models to the existing tier with better performance at the same price. They have also added a new, even higher performance model which can leverage test time compute to scale performance if you want to pay for that GPU time. This is no different than AWS offering some larger ec2 instance tier with more resources and a higher price tag than existing tiers.
  - echelon 2y ago
    They're throwing products at the wall to see what sticks. They're trying to rapidly morph from a research company into a product company. Models are becoming a commodity. It's game theory. Every second place company (eg. Meta) or nation (eg. China) is open sourcing its models to destroy value that might accrete to the competition. China alone has contributed a ton of SOTA and novel foundation models (eg. Hunyuan).

shortrounddev2 2y ago

Overcharging for a product to make it seem better than it really is has served apple well for decades

crazygringo 2y ago
That's a tired trope that simply isn't true. Does Apple charge a premium? Of course. Do Apple products also tend to have better construction, greater reliability, consistent repair support, and hold their resale value better? Yes. The idea that people are buying Apple because of the Apple premium simply doesn't hold up to any scrutiny. It's demonstrably not a Verblen good.
- shortrounddev2 2y ago
  > consistent repair support The lack of repairability is easily Apple's worst quality. They do everything in their power to prevent you from repairing devices by yourself or via 3rd party shops. When you take it to them to repair, they often will charge you more than the cost of a new device. People buy apple devices for a variety of reasons; some people believe in a false heuristic that Apple devices are good for software engineering. Others are simply teenagers who don't want to be the poor kid in school with an Android. Conspicuous consumption is a large part of Apple's appeal.
- Draiken 2y ago
  Here in Brazil Apple is very much all about showing off how rich you are. Especially since we have some of the most expensive Apple products in the world. Maybe not as true in the US, but reading about the green bubble debacle, it's also a lot about status.
  - vbezhenar 2y ago
    Same in Kazakhstan. It's all about status. Many poor persons get a credit to buy iPhones, because they want to look rich.
- windexh8er 2y ago

omarhaneef 2y ago

I think this is probably right but so far it seems that the areas in which an LLM is most effective do fine with the lower power models. Example: the 4o or Claude are great for coding, summarizing and rewriting emails. So which domains require a slightly better model? I suppose if the error rate in code or summary goes down even 10%, it might be worth $180/month.

ducttapecrown 2y ago
I bet users won't pay for the power, but for a guarantee of access! I always hear about people running out of compute time for ChatGPT. Obvious answer is charge more for a higher quality service.
vbezhenar 2y ago
Few days ago I had issue with IPsec VPN behind NAT. I spend few hours Googling around, tinkering with system, I had some rough understanding of what goes wrong, but not much and I had no idea how to solve this issue. I made a very exhaustive question to ChatGPT o1-preview, including all information I though is relevant. Something like good forums question. Well, 10 seconds later it spew me a working solution. I was ashamed, because I have 20 years of experience under my belt and this model solved non-trivial task much better than me. I was ashamed but at the same time that's a superpower. And I'm ready to pay $200 to get solid answers that I just can't get in a reasonable timeframe.
- gedy 2y ago
  It is really great when it works, but challenge is I've had it sometimes not understanding a detailed programming question and it confidently gives an incorrect answer. Going back and forth a few times ends up clear it really does not know answer, but I end up going in circles. I know LLMs can't really tell you "sorry I don't know this one", but I wish they could.
- BOOSTERHIDROGEN 2y ago
  The exhaustive question makes ChatGPT reconstruct your answer in real-time, while all you need to do is sleep; your brain will construct the answer and deliver it tomorrow morning.

pera 2y ago

> A con like that wouldn't last very long. The NFT market lasted for many years and was enormous. Never underestimate the power of hype.

taco_emoji 2y ago

> A con like that wouldn't last very long. Bernie Madoff ran his investment fund as a Ponzi scheme for over a decade (perhaps several decades)

john-radio 2y ago

A better way to express it than a "con" is that it's a price-framing device. It's like listing a watch at an initial value of $2,000 so that people will feel content to buy it at $400.

jl6 2y ago
That sounds like a con to me too.
- xanderlewis 2y ago
  The line between ‘con’ and ‘genuine value synthesised in the eye of the buyer using nothing but marketing’ is very thin. If people are happy, they are happy.

px1999 2y ago

Imo the con is picking the metric that makes others look artificially bad when it doesn't seem to be all that different (at least on the surface) > 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 This surely makes the other models post smaller numbers. I'd be curious how it stacks up if doing eg 1/1 attempt or 1/4 attempts.

mrandish 2y ago

> ... or their employer does. I suspect this is a key driver behind having a higher priced, individual user offering. It gives pricing latitude for enterprise volume licenses.

ben_w 2y ago

> A con like that wouldn't last very long As someone who has both repeatedly written that I value the better LLMs as if they were a paid intern (so €$£1000/month at least), and yet who gets so much from the free tier* that I won't bother paying for a subscription: I've seen quite a few cases where expensive non-functional things that experts demonstrate don't work, keep making money. My mum was very fond of homeopathic pills and Bach flower tinctures, for example. * 3.5 was competent enough to write a WebUI for the API so I've got the fancy stuff anyway as PAYG when I want it.

spaceman_2020 2y ago

HN has been just such an awful place to discuss AI. Everyone here is convinced its a grift, a con, and we're all "marks" Just zero curiosity, only skepticism.

999900000999 2y ago

Ok. Let's say I run a company call AndSoft. AndSoft has about 2000 people on staff, maybe 1000 programers. This solution will cost 200k per year. Or 2.4 million per year. Llama3 is effectively free with some liberation. Is ChatGPT pro 2.4 million a year better than Llama3. Of course Open AI will offer volume discounts. I imagine if I was making north of 500k a year I'd subscribe as a curiosity... At least for a few months. If your time is worth 250$ a hour, and this saves you an hour per month it's well worth it.

newsclues 2y ago

Maybe not very long, but long enough is plausible.