I have been utilising GPT to create my own app, and now openAI wants to be the only app that matters. I’m not sure whether I should be excited or not :/
They will allow revenue sharing so then it's a matter of how many customers they'd be able to offer you for your app; and whether it makes sense for you to distribute through them or bypass them and distribute yourself.
This business model will only serve them in the long run. Luckily for us, open source llms are getting traction and we won't depend on "open"AI to implement features on our apps.
Well, they tried to put a government sponsored moat in the way of other people building AI companies that would be competing with them. Thankfully, they mostly seem to have whiffed the ball on that one. This plan of theirs to monetize the creation of agents and other tools that take advantage of their underlying infrastructure is a good secondary kind of moat. Because, if your tool relies on their underlying infrastructure, even if you could build something different, the infrastructure is required. This may be a "less-evil" way to keep them building things and making tools available without completely locking out competition.
Every prompt you put in somebody else's LLM goes into the training set of the next iteration of said LLM, with the explicit purpose of replacing you as a cognitively, and therefore economically, relevant entity. The only dignified move is not to play, though it's a very difficult choice. It probably not a winning move, though at this point there are no obvious winning moves -- you and I and all our loved ones will be obsoleted and replaced by tech within the next few years. Concretely, to not play means to stop feeding the machine data, i.e. disconnecting from the digital world. Given how digitalized society is becoming, possibly also from the modern society altogether. Godspeed.
I think all technological revolutions have caused similar transformations which obsolete certain types of activities and push novel activities to the forefront.
Not playing is certainly possible but could be a losing strategy as well.
I like to think about it from the perspective of the far future, looking back on me as a historical actor. I have no idea what will happen exactly, of course, but I can't imagine a moral/social crisis of the past where "cross your fingers and hope it goes away" is a move I'd approve of...
That said, your worry is one I definitely share. I guess I just hope more people think of ways they can try to ride/shape this wave, rather than stop/weather it.
What is your job? Chances are, it’s nothing an AGI (based on LLMs) can’t do, and an AGI is possible, today. People are building these things today, check out GitHub. And if you don’t believe GPT-4 cannot do your job cheaper than you, just wait for GPT-N, which will be able to.
What did you expect? Surely it was just an MVP, and you expected OpenAI to commoditize its complements? Right?
On the long run, if your idea or app can be expressed as a flavor of a general GPT, you will not be able to compete with the AI gorillas. The space for AI startups is with custom, highly niched data or capabilities, that cannot be found in a general corpus, or that you can uniquely generate or control.
I thought about the same thing, I've seen a lot of apps that have similar ideas like "ChatGPT chatbot for your data or your website", I don't know how will they deal with it.
Poe has done a great job in this space, quite a large marketplace of existing bots. I'm excited to see what it can do with the extra vision, D•ALLE, and Code Interpreter models.
Awesome, I've been waiting for something like this.
It looks like we are moving away from apps to web GPTs, this looks like chatbot interface is here to stay and 'AI' is now the default interface that is to be expected.
I also don't need to spend lots of money on a developer to test my ideas out, this is great for product validation, I look forward to playing with GPTs.
I can see writing, travel and other bots being more enhanced and more powerful, hopefully existing startups will adapt to this change.
I wonder how much money I could make making "GPTs" full time. Barrier to entry is nonexistent so I imagine highest revenue ones if this becomes a serious thing people use will be advertised externally or have some proprietary info/access.
The GPT's making the most money will be made by larger companies who advertise use of it and maybe make it a funnel to their in-app integration, or GPTs which are made effective by information that is proprietary.
This makes me think of the Alexa skills ecosystem which is full of low quality skills. Many of which have poor data practices abstracted away behind the scenes. How long until "Chat with your favorite character from [Intellectual Property]?" which is simply made to promote a new film or collect data.
Thoughts on Zapier trying to become OpenAI faster than OpenAPI can become Zapier? There will always be a long tail of APIs that folks want integrating, but the most popular APIs are perhaps only a few hundred in number (Google Calendar and Slack, for example).
I feel like history has shown that those who own the platform end up winning and in this case OpenAI's platform of models seems much harder to recreate. My guess is this would lead to Zapier using OpenAI as a platform and eventually OpenAI would re-create Zapier's integrations before the other way around.
I think this perspective is fair and historically accurate wrt platform risk, but I also strongly believe Zapier has substantial value beyond what historically has been acting as a conduit between APIs. Customers don't want a pipe between their services, they want to automate their mundane work with a robot.
What is Zapier's value-add when GPT can chain an arbitrary number of flexible API calls? Imagine if the GPT plug-ins directory is fed as input to GPT...
The problem with Zapier is all the individual accounts and contracts you need with dozens of companies in order to have them all communicating for a real business. SaaS fatigue is a real issue.
Sounds like a call for them to partner with Venminder or a similar business to manage all your SaaS from a contractual perspective, as well as some CASB (cloud access security broker) to handle onboarding, offboarding, and governance of an org's SaaS inventory. Legit problem, but SaaS isn't going away.
So many zapier integrations are half baked. A lot of them are good for reacting to events but not for searching for data (i.e. you can use zapier to react to a jira ticket change but can't use zapier to query jira for ticket info)
I think something could be said for "virality" as well - could easily see some entertainment or lifehack themed templates blowing up on TikTok. No one wants to post the output of the lame, less popular template on their story!
How does the store solve visibility? In the demo it looked like there was a select list of Custom Assistants in the left panel which he manually had to click, so not much different from plug-ins?
Right he said something about promoting the best but what about the discoverability?
OpenAI in a weird way has mediocre marketing. The examples they use for Dalle-3 are way worse than the average ones I see people cooking up on Twitter/Reddit. They only seem to demo the most vaguely generic implementations of their app. Even their DevDay logo is just 4 lines of text.
Omg… Thinking about their push for regulation with this… Are they after something like keeping advanced generative pretrained transformer LLM model technology to themselves, prohibiting others, at least in American economy where regulations can be applied?
To be fair, the name "ChatGPT" has quite a bit of mindshare and I've found many non-technical folks referring to any generative AI product as "ChatGPT" or "GPT". Yet, if you asked any single one of them what "GPT" stood for, they'd have no clue.
To be fair, I'm a dev who uses chatgpt on an hourly basis and I had no idea what GPT stood for until I googled it just now. I think it's kinda smart to make people strongly associate GPT with OpenAI
I don't recall which interviews I saw it stated in, but I believe Sam said in one or two of his world tour stops, where he stated they deliberately have gone with a technical name instead of a human name to help remind those using it that it's not a person. So I think that coupled with the mindshare (as others have stated) it already holds, makes a lot of sense to stick with it.
Doesn't seem like a problem to me. Many brands are acronyms that are meaningless, too technical or arbitrary. Very common for cars for instance, how about a BMW X5 V8 SUV?
Plus, "generative pre-trained transformer" sounds futuristic, which seems like a fitting brand image for OpenAI.
How much would you pay for an actual Programming Rubber Duck ChatGPT terminal that you can talk to like Amazon Echo? With a bluetooth screencast input and keyboard and mouse output so it could see your screen and pair program with you, of course.
Imagine a "GPT" that could generate websites and provide you with a live deployment as you change it using natural language. A website builder GPT that is primed to output and design in a decent way, that has all the prep beforehand to use particular libraries, and integrations with something like Render.
One can come up with all sorts of ideas like this, but building it will be a matter of slow iterations at prompt engineering in a mixture of natural language and data structures and will be at the whim of changing APIs, including the backing ChatGPT model. Sounds messy, hard to manage, hard to test...or am I missing what the actual process will be for creating one of these?
Good intuition, it was in the demo. Chat with an agent to config a new GPT. Then make the GPT available to others if you wish. Same functionality is exposed via API IIRC.
You could farm the hell out of referral link before people catch up. Prob already too late, but there's a lot of market that's searching comparatives and would be fooled by this.
I'm more confused how the revenue share works. Do they get part of my ChatGPT subscription fee? Am I paying extra? Per bot? Per amount of time I consult with the bot?
I'm certain of one thing...when I'm making a GPT, I save, I update and it completely disregards established rules, making me max out my requests very fast. It also gives general answers when I ask for specifics. I only have Plus. In regards to general answers...I then went to Bard and got exactly what I was looking for after 1 request-this is well known information that's been online for years, information that Bing certainly has...it was making me angry, basically charging me for doing nothing over and over.
For instance, my GPT is based on a list of 15 items. I had to repeatedly tell it not to deviate from the list because it kept doing so. I save and update every time, and it never matters.
And seeing how OpenAI is moving up the value chain, what's the guarantee they won't come up with an in-house competitor to the bot that was built on their platform?
Guarantee? That's one of the most important aspects of bothering to build out a platform: eat the ecosystem to add incremental value to the platform, bolster the moat.
The guarantee is that they will clone and extinguish most of the best bots/tools/services riding on top of GPT. It's what platforms overwhelmingly tend to do.
If your thing is a near-touch to GPT, depends on it, is of medium complexity or lower, and is very popular/useful, they will build your thing into GPT eventually.
On the flip side, if you're Salesforce and using GPT to augment something about a major product, you're not facing a serious threat of OpenAI trying to become the next big CRM company.
This process will work similarly to how it did with Windows, Google, AWS, etc.
Their primary target is B2B and they want to get that market ASAP. Pretty sure any idea or anything that seems feasible will be copied and even improved upon.
The pattern will continue until no one needs anything. I am sure this company will eat everything. There will be no pie.
Also not only for ChatGPT, but there will be a timespan between majority of people are automated out of jobs and a a forceful redistribution of wealth happens (let’s call it socialism). It’s always a good idea to have that $$ to bridge that gap.
There’s a great new book on how a lot of market leaders did exactly this; it’s called “Chokepoint Capitalism”. It’s from the guy who coined the term “enshittification”
> I wonder how much money I could make making "GPTs" full time
I don’t get why people are thinking along these lines at all. Like, if you don’t own and control the LLM yourself, what makes you so sure OpenAI will allow you to make money at all? They could make advertising externally or hosting external marketplaces against the TOS. They could copy your GPT and put their “official” version at the top of the store page. Just because a technology is powerful does not necessarily mean you can make money off of it.
> what makes you so sure OpenAI will allow you to make money at all?
They might not. But if they do, I'd imagine there are a lot of people who will try. And as long as you're not dependent on the income stream they provide, you don't have much to worry about if it gets shut off.
I just feel like the big tech companies have gotten better at capturing the value of their platforms. It’s not the same as it was in 2008. I don’t think we’re going to see anything like the “manage an indie app as a lifestyle business” boom we saw back then, and I expect the consolidation that killed off most of those indie devs will happen way faster this time.
not much based on what OpenAI has been doing lately, using their own customers as product research and then copying the best ideas. OpenAI pretty much has to keep a huge lead in model capabilities or developers are going to stop using them for this reason
basically copying the Microsoft strategy of Embrace, Extend, Extinguish. Makes sense they took so much funding from Microsoft
It's long after 1pm PST -- does anyone else have access to this yet? I'm on a paid US account (so I assume I should have access) but still get "You do not currently have access to this feature".
I think I speak for a few of us AI Doomers here when I say that this makes me excited and terribly anxious at the same time. So... well done OpenAI :). Great news, and a great feature!
I have no doubt that this will immensely increase uptake among the less technically literate, since it will allow the techy people in their life (or on the app store) to introduce them with much less friction. It'll be like the little examples you can find on the "New Chat" screen of every chatbot, but 1000x more engaging
If the catastrophe is mega-corps getting to monopolize a valuable technology because people saw The Terminator and thought it was a documentary then any announcement from OpenAI is bad news.
The catastrophe is humanity going extinct from superintelligent AI. Like a native species going extinct after an invasive species arrives. Mentioning Terminator is like saying the Earth is flat because Hitler said it is round.
This reminds of the Eliezer Yudkowsky tweet saying that AI was going to hack our DNA and use our bodies to mine bitcoin or something. Ridiculous fearmongering.
I have probably read more sci-fi than the average HN user but the whole "superintelligent AI is going to kill us all" hysteria is among the more ridiculous ideas I have ever heard.
Really though I have entertained all the doomers propositions and none of them seem any more likely than the plot of the Matrix. The ideas that prop these fears up are based on layers of ever more far fetched hypothesis about things that do not exist. If you have a novel reason why AI poses an x-risk I am more than interested in hearing it.
Here is a really interesting quote that I think might go against some of the misanthropic tendencies of doomers and the tech crowd in general but it really is more relevant than ever:
“There was also the Argument of Increasing Decency, which basically held that cruelty was linked to stupidity and that the link between intelligence, imagination, empathy and good-behaviour-as-it-was-generally-understood – i.e. not being cruel to others – was as profound as these matters ever got.”
True humans have been remarkably ignorant throughout our short history. Though you might notice though that most folks dont go around abusing animals or hurting other people on purpose. Take from that what you will.
Maybe together as a species we can avoid hellish cyberpunk dystopias brought on by regulatory capture of the most powerful technology created by humans thusfar. I can only hope.
But anyway, that's just human terrorists using future AIs to build biological weapons. But the much greater danger is superintelligent AI causing human extinction by itself.
That is not an article that is a series of short-form tweets. If it was an actual article I would absolutely read it but I cannot see referencing a bunch of tweets from a self-proclaimed expert as in any sense good faith. I asked if you had any novel ideas about how "superintelligent AI" gives a valid x-risk but you failed to provide any interesting ideas. So I wont engage with what from my perspective is fearmongering for the benefit of malicious corporations.
I still dont see any studies with control groups and reproduceable experimental procedures saying that any AI agent is in any way more useful to a 'terrorist' than unrestricted access to the internet.
> That is not an article that is a series of short-form tweets. If it was an actual article I would absolutely read it
So you didn't even read the tweets? They contain the link to a paper.
> self-proclaimed expert
Esvelt is absolutely a recognized expert on biotechnology. The authors of the article you linked to are not.
> I asked if you had any novel ideas about how "superintelligent AI" gives a valid x-risk
I just responded to your article about bioterrorism, which was not about x-risk. Arguments about x-risk were made elsewhere, but I'm sure you would dismiss them because they don't contain studies with control groups.
Oh you mean the paper that was discredited in the link I already shared? I am not going to copy and paste the argument from the link I shared, you can read it for yourself. I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you actually read the article that you claimed to read but unfortunately good faith arguments around this seem impossible to have with the alarmist crowd.
So yes the paper that was already discredited in the essay I posted that you didn't read
------------------
"While I was writing this, an extra paper game out on the same topic as the "Dual-use biotechnology" paper, with the fun title "Will releasing the weights of future large language models grant widespread access to pandemic agents?"."
Maybe this is a totally different paper with exactly the same name but if not, I am not really interested in reading a paper that is unrepeatable and doesn't use control groups because that isnt science
>Though you might notice though that most folks dont go around abusing animals or hurting other people on purpose. Take from that what you will.
It doesn't matter what "most folks" go about doing. If anything it makes things all the scarier. All this destruction we've caused to so many other species and we weren't even trying.
I think without AI we wouldn't go extinct for a long time. There are no other likely extinction risks. Toby Ord has a nice book (The Precipice) about various forms of extinction risks, and he basically says the same thing.
I think that's probably the point. It's kind of like early Wordpress with plugins. People who couldn't make professional websites suddenly could (with a little design and UI sense.) So I thought maybe if you get in at the beginning you might be able to make some waves in a pond...but I'm not sure because it moves much quicker and evolves into different things. Eventually, soon, none of the GPT's will be shiny enough.
Yeah none of them ever did, and that was always very obvious. If you can make it by wrapping a few API calls, you have no moat and anyone can steal your idea/customers.
Even if you're doing something with strong network effects you've got to consider cases like facebook which weren't first movers in markets where there are super strong network effects and yet still won. You're not really going to have a 'community' based moat for PDF analyzer tool #5 or retrieval augmented generation knowledgebase parser #300. You're not gonna have a moat based on much else either...
They never made sense long term, of course. But, plenty of first movers made a bundle of money making chatgpt wrappers and marketing the hell out of them. In that context, they probably made sense for a small subset of people for a small slice of time.
Conversion.ai / Jarvis.ai / Jasper.ai / whatever they’re called today raised $125M at a $1.5b valuation, so it made sense at some point to some people.
1) Jasper isn’t exactly what I’d call “thin.” It has e.g. an entire project management suite inside it now. They moved very fast into a vertical SaaS platform, probably because they knew that a thin wrapper was neither a particularly good product nor a defensible one.
2) There are tons of actually thin wrappers that raised a ton of money — contrary to popular belief this does not mean they are good businesses (Jasper, AFAICT, doesn’t seem to fall into the categories of either “thin wrapper” or bad business)
3) Obviously anything being called out as not making any sense allegedly “made sense” to some people at some point otherwise it wouldn’t be worth talking about.
Jasper was cited in a recent TechCrunch article about the obvious vulnerability of the API wrapper startup business model. I guess we could argue at length about the thickness of the wrapper, but that seems unproductive.
Many startups have started over the past few years, trying to build infrastructure (shovels) for companies to integrate LLMs, or specific chat copilots trying to cater to a specific usecase. Most are dead in the water once OpenAI subsumes their feature set.
... is what people who don't understand positioning will parrot time and time again.
Jasper isn't having a good time, but you'd think the fact anyone can produce better output than they did after spending millions of dollars in GPT-3 based pipelines for $20 a month would mean they're dead dead.
But instead they went and changed their positioning, changed who their target market is, adjusted the UX, the messaging, and the feature set, and now it's a product that has a place even if OpenAI can give all of your marketers an internal ChatGPT (unless your plan is to have 100 different "GPTs" for every marketing task in your company)
tl;dr: People fail to realize that OpenAI can offer your startup's core value proposition tomorrow morning, and it doesn't matter if they don't offer it in a format that resonates with your target users.
You could have a cure to cancer and you'd still have to market it correctly.
What isn't a wrapper? Honestly everyone turns they nose in the air and claims all superiority bit I challenge you to find a use case that isn't just a 'wrapper'
That's the complete opposite of reality: Jasper could only fight to survive because they were a wrapper.
Imagine if Jasper had raised and built their own GPT-3 alternative from the ground up at 100x the cost targeted at writing: it wouldn't have generalized like OpenAI's models given the different goals in training, they'd have spent orders of magnitude more, they'd currently be scrambling to partner with some non-OpenAI provider to play the role OpenAI does for them today...
Jasper "only" had to start integrating new APIs to keep up with the SOTA in quality, and instead of burning precious runway on R&D they get to focus on rebranding and driving home that positioning.
> I'm not even sure what kind of startup still makes sense as a gpt thin wrapper?
Startups don't make sense as thin wrappers around another company's product when that company is aggressively expanding that product is a core offering that the vendor is aggressively working to provide as an integrated solution for as many markets as possible, which very much applies to OpenAI offerings in general, and its chat models especially.
A wrapper that also leverages some exclusive special sauce data, algorithm, etc., for which you have a real moat as a key component, that makes some sense. But just a thin wrapper around GPT? That's just asking to have your market eaten by OpenAI.
It might make some sense for products where the vendor is a stable, steady-state infrastructure supplier for many markets without any evident interest in entering the same market as the startup, where the uncertainty across markets that they would create by specifically targeting your startups market would hurt them more with their established customers than they would gain from your niche, but even that is risky because it requires lots of potentially-erroneous assessments of how the vendor would expect their other customers to react to them acting in your market.
Can I ask what the goal is here? It's cool to be able to spin up a nicely designed website (and it is nicely designed and has a good aesthetic), but isn't the content going to be semantically empty? I don't want to be negative but it feels like cheap plastic imitation of a real thing, and the web is already full of spammy low quality content. Aren't you in danger of your products having a very short life cycle and ending up as digital landfill, so to speak?
The quality of the GPT4 content for travel is surprisingly good, although there are of course plenty of hallucinations and I've a new pass for the content set up that gets rid of the worst offenders. This is really just a learning experiment, but building something of this content scale by 1 person was absolutely impossible a year ago.
The point was that content generation use cases might be a viable path give OpenAI's thin-wrappers-killing direction.
But does anyone particularly want another travel site full of generic advice? Nothing against your individual project, I'm just saying that the web is already absolutely awash in marketing materials and all-in-one portals. If I'm visiting a place and want to read up on it in advance I tend to look for someone with insider knowledge, otherwise I could just buy a guidebook specifically about that place (might be a bit dated, but the editorial quality in a book is usually orders of magnitude better than the web).
LLMs can quickly extract ideas using search and synthesize fresh articles. Take this conversation thread for example, there are many interesting ideas here, they can be scooped and formatted in a nice style. This gives AI a seed of authenticity, its main role would be to curate the mess.
It was (is) basically a smash and grab. You can spin up a site and a payment processor so fast nowadays that it just takes a weekend of work to go from idea to "Click here to subscribe and get 200 [AI generation] a month!"
I think people may be overstating this. OpenAI has obvious brand and distribution advantages for their end-user facing products, but they aren't guaranteed to hit the bullseye and be the market leader in every category. ChatGPT plugins, for example, have never really taken off. Startups like Perplexity and Phind are doing just fine in the "search the web with AI" space that plugins were supposedly going to dominate.
I'd say that trying to build a business plugging gaps in OpenAI's infrastructure offerings (fine-tuning, RAG, etc.) is quite perilous, since this is really their core competency. But they've still had just one big user-facing hit so far: ChatGPT.
Wrapping OpenAI for a specific use case then building better workflows and UI for that use case than ChatGPT seems like it's still a pretty reasonable strategy. OpenAI isn't going to build the ideal workflow/UI for every use case.
I recently enjoy Perplexity.ai for their superior search+llm integration, while chatGPT usually send stupid search keywords to Bing that I know are not going to help.
Yeah I'm getting pretty sick of these announcements followed by insanely slow rollouts. I'm a paying customer and have been since Plus became available. So annoying.
I don't know for sure but I'd bet BIG money that these do not include automatic fine-tuning, though I still understand them to be a bit more powerful than just "custom prompts" -- think templates, or sets of custom prompts for specific (sub-)situations.
This is the kind of feature that will prove to be a minor improvement for anyone on this forum, and a complete paradigm shift for the less technically-inclined. IMO.
> Is this basically them deploying fine tuned models?
From the description of the past outside practice it is marketed as moving into OpenAI's offering, it sounds more like its custom prompts, not fine-tuned models.
The GPT Store will prove to be an interesting moderation and quality control experiment for OpenAI. Apple/Google have spent a lot of time and money on both of those things and they still have issues, and that's not even accounting for the fact that AI growth hackers will be the primary creators of GPTs. And a revenue sharing agreement will provide even more incentive to do the traditional App Store marketing shennanigans.
Not sure about currently - but budget increases seemed to be manually reviewed in a queue. I had to increase monthly budget amounts twice and it took like 10-30 hours for each approval, interesting to see how their processes advance.
Tickets filed by plugin developers (including requests to publish or update a plugin) are handled by bots. The only contact I've had with a human there has been via backchannels.
Yes, thats also why policies aren’t enforced. I assume OpenAI knew all along that plugins probably are a dead end. Wonder if they will be around 6 months from now.
But Actions will have all the same security challenges basically.
The more elaborate the moderation tooling, the faster the race to the bottom gets as revenue drives black-hat marketers to become experts in circumventing AI moderation. It could end up being Google “S”EO all over again where we eventually ended up with very little real information in the results.
I don’t think it’s that far away. It’s not just that technology has been accelerating over the past few decades, it’s that the humans have been gaining more and more knowledge about the bigger fundamental patterns that technology uses.
As a very rough example: if their demographic is Americans they will come out the gate with proper spelling, grammar and sentence structure that’s been run through LLM(s), and an overall branding that does not raise any immediate red flags. If someone tries to implement a blacklist or whitelist of words, they will walk past it like it wasn’t even there.
"Example GPTs are available today for ChatGPT Plus and Enterprise users to try out including Canva and Zapier AI Actions." and yet as a paying ChatGPT Plus customer, neither the Canva nor the Zapier AI Actions link work for me, I get a "GPT inaccessible or not found" error for Canva or Zapier.
> Example GPTs are available today for ChatGPT Plus
or
> Starting today, no more hopping between models; everything you need is in one place.
Neither of which are true. I'm a paying user and I have access to neither. They do this _all the time_. They announce something "available immediately" and it trickles out a week or more later. If they want to do gradual rollouts (which is smart) then they should say as much.
I (Plus subscriber, EU) tried https://chat.openai.com/gpts/editor (as linked from https://help.openai.com/en/articles/8554407-gpts-faq#h_86549... ) a minute ago and got a "You do not currently have access to this feature" toast notification on orange background top of pace, along with "chat.openai.com" in the URL bar.
(Chrome on Android, but besides a responsive layout, I haven't noticed discrepancies with the desktop Chromium site/interface; sadly the native Android app still shows no signs of code interpreter mode.)
The announced (and a few days ago leaked) Omni prompt also doesn't show up in the model selector. And that despite the expanded context looking very promising for the REPL-feedback-augmented code generation abilities.
Posting from another comment in a different thread, everything that is new from OpenAI developer day:
- Context length extended to 128k (~300 pages).
- Better memory retrieveal across a longer span of time
- 4 new APIs: DALLE-3, GPT-4-vision, TTS (speech synthesis), and Whisper V3 (speech recognition).
- GPT-4 Turbo, a more intelligent iteration, confirmed as superior to GPT-4.
- GPT-4 Turbo pricing significantly reduced, about 3 times less expensive than GPT-4. Input and output tokens are respectively 3× and 2× less expensive than GPT-4. It’s available now to all developers in preview.
- Improved JSON handling (via JSON mode) and function invocation for more sophisticated control.
- Doubled rate limits with the option to request increases in account settings.
- Built-in retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) and knowledge current as of April 2023.
- Whisper V3 to be open-sourced and added to the API suite.
- Copyright Shield initiative to cover legal fees for copyright-related issues.
- Ability to create your own, custom "GPTs".
- Assistants API and new tools (Retrieval, Code Interpreter)
- 3.5 Turbo 16k now cheaper than old 4k. 0.003c per 1k in / 0.004c per 1k out.
Nah, I'm in the US (with a US based account) and I'm still getting the message it's rolling out over the next few days (you have to open a sample to see that message).
> We believe the most incredible GPTs will come from builders in the community. Whether you’re an educator, coach, or just someone who loves to build helpful tools, you don’t need to know coding to make one and share your expertise.
“Please work for us for free, while we keep all the product of your work for ourselves like we did with the content we scraped on the internet.”
Isn’t that the game they all play? Amazon Marketplace. Apple App Store. Let the guinea pigs run. See which one gets the furthest. Then take away its lunch.
I’m very excited about all the new developments but must say that they really dropped the ball on marketing this one. The feature name is ambiguous and unsearchable.
340 comments
[ 0.25 ms ] story [ 262 ms ] threadNot playing is certainly possible but could be a losing strategy as well.
That said, your worry is one I definitely share. I guess I just hope more people think of ways they can try to ride/shape this wave, rather than stop/weather it.
On the long run, if your idea or app can be expressed as a flavor of a general GPT, you will not be able to compete with the AI gorillas. The space for AI startups is with custom, highly niched data or capabilities, that cannot be found in a general corpus, or that you can uniquely generate or control.
The challenge is how to adapt to create new opportunities.
It looks like we are moving away from apps to web GPTs, this looks like chatbot interface is here to stay and 'AI' is now the default interface that is to be expected.
I also don't need to spend lots of money on a developer to test my ideas out, this is great for product validation, I look forward to playing with GPTs.
I can see writing, travel and other bots being more enhanced and more powerful, hopefully existing startups will adapt to this change.
Exciting and interesting times!
A good paper on the state of the Alexa skills BTW
SkillVet: Automated Traceability Analysis of Amazon Alexa Skills https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9619970
Right he said something about promoting the best but what about the discoverability?
Anyone with factual data (proprietary or not) is now an input away to AI / GPTs.
Data (or a new foundational model) is now the moat.
I saw that announcement and my immediate thought was "God yet another thing passive income youtubers will be shilling soon"
In general, I was a little confused by this. Sam's demo of creating a GPT didn't seem particularly exciting as well.
Plus, "generative pre-trained transformer" sounds futuristic, which seems like a fitting brand image for OpenAI.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_China_Syndrome
I’d pay for one that was good at programming rubber ducking
There are specific sub-tasks that everyone would pay for to make their lives easier. This marketplace is trying to make that efficient
Study the Poe ecosystem, and look at YouTube or Reddit.
. . .
EDIT: adding the detail from my comment 2 below, I'm referring to...
Bot creator monetization:
https://developer.poe.com/resources/creator-monetization
Earn money when:
- your bot brings a user to Poe for the first time and they eventually subscribe
- your bot brings a user back to Poe and they eventually subscribe
- your bot’s paywall is seen just before a user subscribes users send messages to your bot (starting soon)
https://developer.poe.com/resources/creator-monetization
Earn money when:
- your bot brings a user to Poe for the first time and they eventually subscribe
- your bot brings a user back to Poe and they eventually subscribe
- your bot’s paywall is seen just before a user subscribes users send messages to your bot (starting soon)
People would pay for that.
Sh--... I better build it!
The guarantee is that they will clone and extinguish most of the best bots/tools/services riding on top of GPT. It's what platforms overwhelmingly tend to do.
If your thing is a near-touch to GPT, depends on it, is of medium complexity or lower, and is very popular/useful, they will build your thing into GPT eventually.
On the flip side, if you're Salesforce and using GPT to augment something about a major product, you're not facing a serious threat of OpenAI trying to become the next big CRM company.
This process will work similarly to how it did with Windows, Google, AWS, etc.
The pattern will continue until no one needs anything. I am sure this company will eat everything. There will be no pie.
Also not only for ChatGPT, but there will be a timespan between majority of people are automated out of jobs and a a forceful redistribution of wealth happens (let’s call it socialism). It’s always a good idea to have that $$ to bridge that gap.
I don’t get why people are thinking along these lines at all. Like, if you don’t own and control the LLM yourself, what makes you so sure OpenAI will allow you to make money at all? They could make advertising externally or hosting external marketplaces against the TOS. They could copy your GPT and put their “official” version at the top of the store page. Just because a technology is powerful does not necessarily mean you can make money off of it.
They might not. But if they do, I'd imagine there are a lot of people who will try. And as long as you're not dependent on the income stream they provide, you don't have much to worry about if it gets shut off.
It takes significant effort to come up with good use cases, build the prompts, and advertise the bots.
So a company can get a lot of value by going after this up and coming type of "content creator".
basically copying the Microsoft strategy of Embrace, Extend, Extinguish. Makes sense they took so much funding from Microsoft
Maybe it's because I'm out of the country today?
I have no doubt that this will immensely increase uptake among the less technically literate, since it will allow the techy people in their life (or on the app store) to introduce them with much less friction. It'll be like the little examples you can find on the "New Chat" screen of every chatbot, but 1000x more engaging
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerationism
I have probably read more sci-fi than the average HN user but the whole "superintelligent AI is going to kill us all" hysteria is among the more ridiculous ideas I have ever heard.
Really though I have entertained all the doomers propositions and none of them seem any more likely than the plot of the Matrix. The ideas that prop these fears up are based on layers of ever more far fetched hypothesis about things that do not exist. If you have a novel reason why AI poses an x-risk I am more than interested in hearing it.
Here is a really interesting quote that I think might go against some of the misanthropic tendencies of doomers and the tech crowd in general but it really is more relevant than ever: “There was also the Argument of Increasing Decency, which basically held that cruelty was linked to stupidity and that the link between intelligence, imagination, empathy and good-behaviour-as-it-was-generally-understood – i.e. not being cruel to others – was as profound as these matters ever got.”
Give this essay a read if youre interested in good faith arguments about the danger of AI at the current state of development. https://1a3orn.com/sub/essays-propaganda-or-science.html
Maybe together as a species we can avoid hellish cyberpunk dystopias brought on by regulatory capture of the most powerful technology created by humans thusfar. I can only hope.
https://nitter.net/kesvelt/status/1720440451059335520
But anyway, that's just human terrorists using future AIs to build biological weapons. But the much greater danger is superintelligent AI causing human extinction by itself.
I still dont see any studies with control groups and reproduceable experimental procedures saying that any AI agent is in any way more useful to a 'terrorist' than unrestricted access to the internet.
So you didn't even read the tweets? They contain the link to a paper.
> self-proclaimed expert
Esvelt is absolutely a recognized expert on biotechnology. The authors of the article you linked to are not.
> I asked if you had any novel ideas about how "superintelligent AI" gives a valid x-risk
I just responded to your article about bioterrorism, which was not about x-risk. Arguments about x-risk were made elsewhere, but I'm sure you would dismiss them because they don't contain studies with control groups.
------------------
"While I was writing this, an extra paper game out on the same topic as the "Dual-use biotechnology" paper, with the fun title "Will releasing the weights of future large language models grant widespread access to pandemic agents?"."
Maybe this is a totally different paper with exactly the same name but if not, I am not really interested in reading a paper that is unrepeatable and doesn't use control groups because that isnt science
It doesn't matter what "most folks" go about doing. If anything it makes things all the scarier. All this destruction we've caused to so many other species and we weren't even trying.
2) There are tons of actually thin wrappers that raised a ton of money — contrary to popular belief this does not mean they are good businesses (Jasper, AFAICT, doesn’t seem to fall into the categories of either “thin wrapper” or bad business)
3) Obviously anything being called out as not making any sense allegedly “made sense” to some people at some point otherwise it wouldn’t be worth talking about.
What kinds have been 'killed' I don't see this anywhere.
Jasper isn't having a good time, but you'd think the fact anyone can produce better output than they did after spending millions of dollars in GPT-3 based pipelines for $20 a month would mean they're dead dead.
But instead they went and changed their positioning, changed who their target market is, adjusted the UX, the messaging, and the feature set, and now it's a product that has a place even if OpenAI can give all of your marketers an internal ChatGPT (unless your plan is to have 100 different "GPTs" for every marketing task in your company)
tl;dr: People fail to realize that OpenAI can offer your startup's core value proposition tomorrow morning, and it doesn't matter if they don't offer it in a format that resonates with your target users.
You could have a cure to cancer and you'd still have to market it correctly.
Imagine if Jasper had raised and built their own GPT-3 alternative from the ground up at 100x the cost targeted at writing: it wouldn't have generalized like OpenAI's models given the different goals in training, they'd have spent orders of magnitude more, they'd currently be scrambling to partner with some non-OpenAI provider to play the role OpenAI does for them today...
Jasper "only" had to start integrating new APIs to keep up with the SOTA in quality, and instead of burning precious runway on R&D they get to focus on rebranding and driving home that positioning.
You must use LLMs as a launching point to something else, some kind of 10x in a vertical.
Being able to "chat" is table stakes and worthless to you as a company by itself.
Startups don't make sense as thin wrappers around another company's product when that company is aggressively expanding that product is a core offering that the vendor is aggressively working to provide as an integrated solution for as many markets as possible, which very much applies to OpenAI offerings in general, and its chat models especially.
A wrapper that also leverages some exclusive special sauce data, algorithm, etc., for which you have a real moat as a key component, that makes some sense. But just a thin wrapper around GPT? That's just asking to have your market eaten by OpenAI.
It might make some sense for products where the vendor is a stable, steady-state infrastructure supplier for many markets without any evident interest in entering the same market as the startup, where the uncertainty across markets that they would create by specifically targeting your startups market would hurt them more with their established customers than they would gain from your niche, but even that is risky because it requires lots of potentially-erroneous assessments of how the vendor would expect their other customers to react to them acting in your market.
see also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38172617
The point was that content generation use cases might be a viable path give OpenAI's thin-wrappers-killing direction.
Here is a sample, it took only a couple of minutes to make: https://pastebin.com/WZpfgWWH
Prompt: Please write a 1000 word long article based off of this text, don't mention the commenters, just weave their ideas into a coherent piece.
I used Claude 2
It happened with hardware, operative systems, web tools such as maps etc.
I'd say that trying to build a business plugging gaps in OpenAI's infrastructure offerings (fine-tuning, RAG, etc.) is quite perilous, since this is really their core competency. But they've still had just one big user-facing hit so far: ChatGPT.
Wrapping OpenAI for a specific use case then building better workflows and UI for that use case than ChatGPT seems like it's still a pretty reasonable strategy. OpenAI isn't going to build the ideal workflow/UI for every use case.
> Go to ChatGPT
Sad. Have a real-world use case ready to go and a plus account.
This is the kind of feature that will prove to be a minor improvement for anyone on this forum, and a complete paradigm shift for the less technically-inclined. IMO.
From the description of the past outside practice it is marketed as moving into OpenAI's offering, it sounds more like its custom prompts, not fine-tuned models.
Also RIP chatgpt plugnins
But Actions will have all the same security challenges basically.
The more elaborate the moderation tooling, the faster the race to the bottom gets as revenue drives black-hat marketers to become experts in circumventing AI moderation. It could end up being Google “S”EO all over again where we eventually ended up with very little real information in the results.
Moderation tooling is not as elaborate as we would hope, and all your work is with humans - who keep adapting.
As a very rough example: if their demographic is Americans they will come out the gate with proper spelling, grammar and sentence structure that’s been run through LLM(s), and an overall branding that does not raise any immediate red flags. If someone tries to implement a blacklist or whitelist of words, they will walk past it like it wasn’t even there.
Edit: here is the message I get:
Your access to custom GPTs isn’t ready yet. We’re rolling this feature out over the coming days. Check back soon.
> Example GPTs are available today for ChatGPT Plus
or
> Starting today, no more hopping between models; everything you need is in one place.
Neither of which are true. I'm a paying user and I have access to neither. They do this _all the time_. They announce something "available immediately" and it trickles out a week or more later. If they want to do gradual rollouts (which is smart) then they should say as much.
The announced (and a few days ago leaked) Omni prompt also doesn't show up in the model selector. And that despite the expanded context looking very promising for the REPL-feedback-augmented code generation abilities.
For others like me that are getting errors accessing the page.
C’mon OpenAI, we’re /trying/ to give you money here!
> We believe the most incredible GPTs will come from builders in the community. Whether you’re an educator, coach, or just someone who loves to build helpful tools, you don’t need to know coding to make one and share your expertise.
“Please work for us for free, while we keep all the product of your work for ourselves like we did with the content we scraped on the internet.”
OpenAI really is next level parasitism.