zlacker

>>mfigui+M3
Frankly, OpenAI seems to be losing its luster, and fast.

Plugins were a failure. GPTs are a little better, but I still don't see the product market fit. GPT-4 is still king, but not by that much any more. It's not even clear that they're doing great research, because they don't publish.

GPT-5 has to be incredibly good at this point, and I'm not sure that it will be.

>>skepti+(OP)
I think OpenAI will do fine, but I have doubts about ChatGPT as a product. It’s just a chat UI, and I’m not convinced the UI will be chat 3 years from now.

Personally, the chat UI is the main limiting factor in my own adoption, because a) it’s not in the tool I’m trying to use, and b) it’s quicker for me to do the work than describe the work I need doing.

>>danpal+8y
I interact with ChatGPT by voice pretty often, they have the best speech recognition I’ve ever seen. I can switch between languages (English, French, German) mid-sentence, think aloud, stop mid sentence, the correct what I just said, use highly technical terms (even describe code), I don’t even double check anymore because it’s almost always transcribed correctly. They can ~easily evolve the product to a more generalized conversation UX instead of just a text based chat.

>>dgello+mD
For me, voice is just a different UX for the same underlying model of chat. I'm sure it's good, but I'm not going to sit at my computer talking to it, and in fact I think talking may be a worse signal to noise ratio than typing, as I can easily use shortcuts with written text.