It has proven to be a great way to get everything to around 70%, then send off to my assistant for the remaining 30% of polish. So at $20/month, it was such a no-brainer, that I had to do it. Even at $75/mo it would more than pay for itself.
It even understands the concept of a "shit post". So - its more social media savvy than I am, thats for sure.
Yeah, what's wrong with that? I'm sure it would be catchy to a particular demographic. No need for a brand to cater to everyone.
Because GPT is capable of: doing marketing, math, science stuff, programming and anything else to a junior-semi advanced level, it needs to be prompted and given context to get it into the right "mood" for doing what you want it to.
There's a huge difference between casually chatting to it about various topics before suddenly asking what a good perfume brand would be. Versus providing it with the fragrances used in the perfumes that the brand makes, the general goals/image that the company wants to set, their target demographic etc and _then_ asking for a brand name suggestion.
I'd be keen to see how they asked.
For text generation, it is much better for tasks like
* letter writing * rewriting my writing so i don't plaigerize myself * summarizing several paragraphs into one
but all of that is available in the free version.
If you're like me you tend to forget you're paying for something, and have to do a yearly purge.
It's very easy to slowly but surely rack up hundreds of dollars a month in subscription services.
- Payment cycle closes always on the 1st of the month (which means, if you sign up on the last day of the month, you get 1 day of service for full month of payment. No proration, or anything.)
- If you cancel the service, you'll immediately lose access, doesn't matter if it's 1st day of the month, or very end of the month, it's gone. To reenroll, you often have to pay again.
Probably for the next proposal I write, I'll pay for it again. It's super useful to take care of all the bullshit things you have to write for science to not plaigerize yourself.
I also tried using it as a dungeon master like that blog post from a couple weeks ago. But gpt4 didn't seem to remember things with regularity enough to actually work. Basically there was an uncanny valley because gpt4 doesn't have a pad of paper to write things down on like any person would have.
Well, it works until it doesn't because the website is overloaded. $20 gets you in through the VIP door and you don't need to wait along with the rest of the peasants.
> Expert mode is our most advanced searching mode, powered by GPT-4. This mode hallucinates less and writes better code. We highly recommend that you use it for advanced questions. Whenever the "regenerate" button is pressed, Expert mode is used to increase the odds of a high-quality answer.
I’ve already incorporated it into my publishing process. My home-grown “cms” uses ChatGPT (via API) to write my article description, draft a twitter thread, and craft a “viral insight”. The latter is mostly useful to make sure my article even makes a point.
Hoping to use it for a related articles feature next. I’m also building a chatbot based on my content.
Yes. i think its a good software product! Maybe one of the best there ever was - I'm not surprised Sam Altman jumped the YC ship for this one, or that MS is particularly interested it. It gets ignored in all the other bru-haha but I'm excited to see what the really talented software teams of the world will be able to accomplish with an AI coding assisstent - and I don't mean just in the world of AI.
The activation energy for new software lowered by about 30% overnight, which is outrageously cool, and of course disquieting.
It would benefit her immensely to use it.
#include <windows.h>
then it is a must have.
better source : https://tech.slashdot.org/story/23/04/18/1326235/microsoft-r...
Yup. I bought accounts for everyone here. We are using it as what I have been calling a "force multiplier". We are not and cannot use it for coding, yet, things like presentations, analyzing logs, creating lists of things, researching topics, etc. It's a great time saver.
Also, for a lot of things ChatGPT is a much better search engine than Google. It gets you great answers and almost always the first time you ask.
In case the question comes up: We don't use it for coding because of potential liability concerns. At this point I feel that is a space that has not been explored at all. I have no interest in being a pioneer in a lawsuit that claims negligence due to the use of AI-generated code, even if it is reviewed by a human. The combination of fear-mongering and tech-challenged juries could make for very expensive outcomes.
I posed a question about this here:
Where do we think Apple is in regards to this? If anyone has the upper-hand here with hardware, I would think it'd be Apple. But there's been zero indication that Apple has been working on any sort of generative AI.
But google is fumbling so hard right now it's not surprising that they are squandering this too.
At the end of the day, all we are doing is create, read, update, and delete data.
I mean if you take away all the complexity associated with ranking and scale (not everything has to be Google scale), that is exactly what a web search is as well, right?
I remember reading a post by a maintainer saying their job is to manipulate strings or something to that effect. iirc it was a gofmt maintainer who said that but I can't find that post now.
Now M$ is planning to create a specialized chip for AI which comes with its own R&D budget and ongoing costs.
If it proves successful, ChatGPT will become a household brand and M$ could easily ask for $500 per month or more for professional/corporate usage.
it's harder to type than just "MS" so when someone uses "M$" they go out of their way to signal that they are biased. Being biased is fine, so long as one understands that they are biased and that they are communicating their bias along with the rest of the message.
Users or accounts? I made an account but I use it approximately once every two weeks for about 30 minutes at a time, as it hasn't been that useful for me (needs more up-to-date info after September 2021).
I imagine many people made an account but only a small percentage are using it meaningfully often.
Also users are limited in the number of requests they can make. I have a feeling ChatGPT is actually very expensive to run, and they are burning cash like crazy.
If they weren't burning cash to run the thing, it would be more widely available.
If the 100m users is accurate, it means they only need to convert low single digit percentage to paying users to break even.
Now it makes sense why they chose to charge $20/m, I predicted much higher.