zlacker

[parent] [thread] 3 comments
1. digitc+(OP)[view] [source] 2023-11-18 09:57:20
I really wonder if a dividing line started to emerge internally regarding the path to take the company.

[1] On one hand they serve Microsoft and developers, building digital AI infrastructure.

[2] On the other hand, they seem to try and want to build some monopoly and destroy as many startups (and companies) as possible.

In the last developer day, they did a half-ass job of both. GPTs suck. The OpenAI Assistants don't have enough documentation to be used and therefore, equally suck.

I really hope for the sake of the AI community (and economy) that [1] is the outcome. I really do not know how they could scale both. As an AI startup, I have a love-hate relationship with GPT and am eager to grow independent on them because how can I trust a company doing [2]?

replies(3): >>dabeee+o6 >>Feepin+L7 >>killer+B8
2. dabeee+o6[view] [source] 2023-11-18 10:48:45
>>digitc+(OP)
"GPTs Suck"

Never change, hacker news!

3. Feepin+L7[view] [source] 2023-11-18 11:01:25
>>digitc+(OP)
Uh, sorry, what? You think serving Microsoft would be opposed to building a monopoly?
4. killer+B8[view] [source] 2023-11-18 11:08:56
>>digitc+(OP)
Was it a right choice to make ChatGPT accessible by the public?

To a person who is not an expert at prompting LLMs, ChatGPT is basically a shitty version of Bing Chat (aka Copilot). Especially the free version - it's an outdated model which cannot search the internet (or does it strictly worse than Bing Chat).

Why does OpenAI pay for access to a shitty version of Bing Chat?

There's only one possible reason for this: raising money at a very high valuation. They burned through hundreds of millions dollars to show VC that they have 100+ M users (and growing rapidly!) to raise at valuation ~$100B.

[go to top]