I'll also point out that paid api access to 3.5 (davinci-03) is frequently better than ChatGPT's use of 3.5. You get many fewer restrictions, and none the "awe shucks, I'm just a little 'ol LLM and so I couldn't possibly answer that".

If you're frustrated by having to go to great lengths to prompt engineer and ask ChatGPT to "pretend" then it's worth it to pay for API access. I'm just frustrated that I can't use the GPT-4 API the same way yet (waitlist)

I pay the $20 for ChatGPT Plus (aka, GPT-4 web interface access); personally I find it useful enough to be worth paying for, even in its rate-limited state. It already replaces Google for anything complex for me. I wish I could pay for the API too, and use it in my projects.

Often times it can just recite things from memory that Google can't even properly link to, and they've got a proper index to work from for fucks sake.

Google has the technology and talent to relaunch themselves in a leadership position, but the current executive team doesn’t seem to have what it takes. They’re custodians / accountants, running the company a bit like Microsoft in the Ballmer era. What google needs to do now is leap ahead, and I don’t see it happening without a leadership change.

It's not exactly a shortcut, and maybe it was just luck, but I suspect the key is just to start building with what you have and show a trajectory. The best part is that coding with ChatGPT-4 as a "colleague" has made the whole thing super fun.

Maybe it’s a bit too paranoid, I don’t know, but I’ve also been open here about my workplace experiences, if someone who knew my irl connection to them and decided to comb through my comments, in a way that my HR dept among others might not quite appreciate. Maybe I should setup a separate HN account connected to me Professionally for that sort of thing.

Also my use case for GPT-4 is data analysis. Using the paid “plus” version shows a lot of promise for quickly bootstrapping data exploration and consumption as a jumping off point for more detailed digging. Via the chat interface it can ingest very small aggregate datasets and spit out observations that only myself and my boss have the domain name expertise to produce in my organization. but the Chat interface is highly limited and often truncates even small (faked but plausible) data, so I really want API access, because it involves sensitive info I couldn’t put into the chat site or responsibly share with someone outside my org.

But really, thanks for the offer. What are you working on with it?

The wait for GPT-4 is not as long as it used to be, and when you're using the API directly there's no censorship.

I’ve been on the GPT-4 waitlist for about 6 weeks, but I’m not sure what the typical wait is.

Wait seriously?

Testing things out, it will produce vile and hateful content on demand. However it won’t say anything. If I specifically tell it to use some words I get the same type of content warning but also an extra note about those words, and that I have to contact openai support if my use case truly requires their use.

There’s also the fact that using or distributing such content is against TOS, so I suppose could simply ban you

Though they could still use "observational" censorship there, i.e. analyze your prompt with a different model. OpenAI does that, not sure about Microsoft.

Could you please describe how one "just" do that? I have been on the GPT-4 API waitlist since it was announced and I still don't have access to the GPT-4 API.

Little correction - 3.5 is not davinci. davinci is 3.0, 3.5-turbo (chatgpt) is a davinci variant that has been tuned and adjusted for chatting and conversation, including all those restrictions. It is much faster than davinci, way cheaper but as you know, results are… ok

davinci (3.0) is more untuned, slower, more expensive to use, not conversational, but can yield much better quality

Little correction of the correction. The base models are:

davinci = GPT-3

code-davinci-002 = GPT-3.5

They do only text completion and do not natively answer to instructions. There are also instruction tuned versions of the latter, e.g. text-davinci-003 and gpt-3.5-turbo-0301 (used in ChatGPT). See

https://platform.openai.com/docs/model-index-for-researchers

Note that code-davinci-002 is no longer available via the OpenAI API, but it is still on Azure. The GPT-4 base model is generally unavailable. Too powerful perhaps.

Thanks you for the offer, but I’m extremely conscious of avoiding a direct link from my comments here to who I am. Maybe it’s a bit too paranoid, I don’t know, but I’ve also been open here about my workplace experiences, if someone who knew my irl connection to them and decided to comb through my comments, in a way that my HR dept among others might not quite appreciate. Maybe I should setup a separate HN account connected to me Professionally for that sort of thing. Also my use case for GPT-4 is data analysis. Using the paid “plus” version shows a lot of promise for quickly bootstrapping data exploration and consumption as a jumping off point for more detailed digging. Via the chat interface it can ingest very small aggregate datasets and spit out observations that only myself and my boss have the domain name expertise to produce in my organization. but the Chat interface is highly limited and often truncates even small (faked but plausible) data, so I really want API access, because it involves sensitive info I couldn’t put into the chat site or responsibly share with someone outside my org. But really, thanks for the offer. What are you working on with it?

GPT-3.5, I think it is mostly suitable for:

1. Quick documentation lookup for non-essential facts

2. Lightweight documents writing and rewriting

3. Translation

Other use cases should go straightly to GPT-4

"In the context of [field I'm ramping up in], what does X mean, and how is it different than Y" -- it's not as good as GPT4 but it emits so much quicker and it normally gets me where I needed to go.

OpenAI spent 600m to improve GPT and made 200m from it and if costs dramatically fall for model development, it might be OpenAI that is shooting itself in the foot.

How do you know?

There is an API for the underlying model, it's just in alpha/beta/whatever they call limited invite-only release and you have to ask your devrel team to get access. I'm guessing we'll see better models very soon.

Google is, as usual, playing catch-up, but I have no doubt once the machine gets cranking they'll be fully competitive, at least similar to how GCP is now a totally viable AWS alternative. They never lead the pack because they can't (lawyers, regulation, monopoly, etc), but they know how to commit and execute.

MJ only does one style, and you can emulate that just fine in SD if thats what you want.