> Should almost be a matter of pride to get it for less than $20.

When you're a high schooler, yes, even Steve Jobs did it. But when your monthly salary is easily in the thousands, it's not a matter of pride to get it for <$20, it's a matter of stupidity.

I agree, it's stupid to pay $20 for something you can get for 2 cents

$20/mo, for the people in this situation, is not an amount of money worth thinking about.

> I agree, it's stupid to pay $20 for something you can get for 2 cents

> $20/mo, for the people in this situation, is not an amount of money worth thinking about.

I don't follow this logic. In this case everything that is currently sold for 2 cents can also be sold for $20, because "it is not an amount of money worth thinking about" (at least for some people).

For some people.

Your perception of money really isn't consistent with the vast majority, I'd imagine.

Frivolously throwing money at unnecessary subscriptions isn't something for me.

You get to call this frivolous, but my perception of money isn't consistent?

Interesting.

> consistent with the vast majority

As ever the whole sentence is important, rather than just picking out a part of it.

What part did I miss?

> with the vast majority

For most use cases, normal GPT-3 provides just as good results as Chat-GPT (though Chat-GPT is a better interface). So I guess if you don't use it much, or you can use one of the less powerful versions, the pay-as-you-go model of GPT-3 is much cheaper. On the other hand, it's certainly possible to spend more than $20/month on GPT-3.

GPT3 also doesn't have the same restrictions. It might be preferable if you're tired of getting "I can't do X I'm a large language model" even if it wasn't cheaper.