News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re: by NautilusWave on Thursday June 20, 2024 @06:37AM (#40737102)
Basically, functional AI interactions are prohibitively resource intensive and expensive. Microsoft's non-coding Copilots are shit due to resource constraints.
Re: by TeMPOraL on Thursday June 20, 2024 @08:16AM (#40737828)
Basically, yes. My last 4 days of playing with this voice assistant cost me some $3.60 for 215 requests to GPT-4o, amounting to a little below 700 000 tokens. It's something I can afford[0], but with costs like this, you can't exactly give GPT-4 access out to people for free. This cost structure doesn't work. It doesn't with GPT-4o, so it more than twice as much didn't with earlier model iterations. And yet, that is what you need if you want a general-purpose Copilot or Assistant-like system. GPT-3.5-Turbo ain't gonna cut it.

In a large sense, Microsoft lied. But they didn't lie about capability of the technology itself - they just lied about being able to afford to deliver it for free.

--

[0] - Extrapolated to a hypothetical subscription, this would be ~$27 per month. I've seen more expensive and worse subscriptions. Still, it's a big motivator to go dig into the code of that integration and make it use ~2-4x fewer tokens by encoding "exposed entities" differently, and much more concisely.

Re: by falcor84 on Thursday June 20, 2024 @09:24AM (#40738516)
> they just lied about being able to afford to deliver it for free.

But they never said it'll be free - I'm pretty sure it was always advertised as a paid add-on subscription. With that being the case, why would they not just offer multiple tiers to Copilot, using different models or credit limits?

Re: by pdimitar on Thursday June 20, 2024 @07:13AM (#40737316)
Contrary to what the corporations want you to believe -- no, you can't buy your way out of every problem. Most of the modern AI tools are mostly oversold and underwhelming, sadly.