[HN Gopher] GPTs: Custom versions of ChatGPT
___________________________________________________________________
GPTs: Custom versions of ChatGPT
Author : davidbarker
Score : 293 points
Date : 2023-11-06 18:18 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (openai.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (openai.com)
| alvis wrote:
| 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 :/
| topicseed wrote:
| 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.
| elforce002 wrote:
| 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.
| mickdarling wrote:
| 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.
| fatherzine wrote:
| 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.
| oezi wrote:
| 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.
| bbor wrote:
| 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.
| willsmith72 wrote:
| > you and I and all our loved ones will be obsoleted and
| replaced by tech within the next few years
|
| What is this? When has this ever proved true, despite being
| spouted throughout all history? It's such an easy, throwaway
| and meaningless sentence.
|
| Please explain further. Replaced how? By what? What's going
| to happen to the humans in the next few years?
| Aerbil313 wrote:
| 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.
| willsmith72 wrote:
| Progress isn't linear. Point me to an AGI on GitHub. Our
| definition of work changes based on the greatest possible
| technology at any given moment.
| zeroCalories wrote:
| When your startup is a repackaging of another company's tech I
| don't see how you can be surprised when a big player swoops in
| to kill you off.
| cornholio wrote:
| 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.
| ahmedhosssam wrote:
| 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.
| awfulneutral wrote:
| The icon for the game explainer one is a die with two 5s on it. I
| wonder if they use ChatGPT to write their blog articles as
| well...
| timdiggerm wrote:
| Definitely a very funny example of their own product's
| shortcomings
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| If it was any good, the "Negotiation" GPT would quickly get you
| paying extra for its services.
| fudged71 wrote:
| 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.
| ahmedfromtunis wrote:
| Any new tech that has the potential of advancing the human
| species I am excited for. And this is one of these.
|
| The challenge is how to adapt to create new opportunities.
| colesantiago wrote:
| 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.
|
| Exciting and interesting times!
| atleastoptimal wrote:
| 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.
| siva7 wrote:
| I'm not sure i understand?
| atleastoptimal wrote:
| 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.
| ca_tech wrote:
| 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.
|
| 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
| bbor wrote:
| Part of the announcement is that they'll open up an app store
| w/ revenue sharing of some kind. "In the coming months" or
| smtn
| stevesearer wrote:
| I bet if you combined GPT creation with Zapier integrations you
| could help a lot of people and companies.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| 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).
| jimmyl02 wrote:
| 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.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| 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.
| JCharante wrote:
| 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)
| bbor wrote:
| 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!
| oezi wrote:
| How many people made any money from the plugins for ChatGPT?
| minimaxir wrote:
| Plugins failing was more due to lack of visibility, which a
| GPT Store does solve.
| manojlds wrote:
| Depends on features. How much data can I give it and how
| much can I customize it?
| singularity2001 wrote:
| 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?
| avarun wrote:
| ChatWithPDF made a TON of money, for one.
| euazOn wrote:
| Source?
| colesantiago wrote:
| I agree.
|
| 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.
| altdataseller wrote:
| What sort of data do you think will be the most valuable to
| input to AI?
| j7ake wrote:
| Data has always been the moat no ?
| jatins wrote:
| > I wonder how much money ...
|
| 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.
| atleastoptimal wrote:
| 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.
| RobertDeNiro wrote:
| Just the fact that they decided to stay with what is
| essentially a highly technical acronym i.e. GPT, as their
| major product line says a lot.
| imdsm wrote:
| And yet in a way I find this refreshing
| falcor84 wrote:
| I think that's actually crucial in that they want to
| trademark this otherwise generic term
| Aerbil313 wrote:
| 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?
| andrewmunsell wrote:
| 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.
| JCharante wrote:
| 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
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| "Generative Pre-trained Transformers" for those who don't
| want to leave the page.
| singularity2001 wrote:
| I've heard all permutations of "GPT" "GPP" "GTP" etc.
| block_dagger wrote:
| I think it might be the ubiquity of the term "GPT" as it
| relates to OpenAI from a public branding perspective.
| manojlds wrote:
| Better that than do a silly rename ala X.
| shawnc wrote:
| 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.
| minimaxir wrote:
| Sam's "all our marketing is from word-of-mouth" was
| refreshingly honest.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Would be somewhat humorous to plug OpenAI into ad
| platforms, give it budget, and say "go market yourself as
| effectively as possible."
| JackFr wrote:
| Need some Boston Dynamics flair.
| conradev wrote:
| I would pay money for a GPT that was incredible at naming
| types in Swift
|
| 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
| NiagaraThistle wrote:
| I find NORMAL ChatGPT a good programming Rubber Duck and
| use it often.
| bilsbie wrote:
| I'm not clear who the market is? Why someone buy one?
| imdsm wrote:
| 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.
|
| People would pay for that.
|
| Sh--... I better build it!
| user_7832 wrote:
| All fun and games until someone sues because the
| "hallucinated" product description didn't match the
| product...
| block_dagger wrote:
| 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?
| mirekrusin wrote:
| Worry not, surely there will be GPT for creating GPTs.
| CSMastermind wrote:
| 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?
| zwily wrote:
| Yeah he didn't explain at all how GPTs would be monetized.
| torginus wrote:
| 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?
| Uehreka wrote:
| > 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.
| michaelmior wrote:
| > 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.
| jes5199 wrote:
| ChatGPT is the new iPhone. Dealing with a walled-garden app
| store is never a great experience, but we'll do it because
| that's where the users are
| stale2002 wrote:
| The answer is because the bot market is a creator economy
| market.
|
| 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".
| ren_engineer wrote:
| 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
| ilaksh wrote:
| Right now, zero. They didn't say when it was rolling out or
| what percentage they would share. It might be something like
| 10%. Lol.
| atleastoptimal wrote:
| I will make a bot that makes GPTs, and a bot that makes other
| bots that make GPTs
| truakon89 wrote:
| But where is the option/link to create a GPT? I can't find it
| imdsm wrote:
| 1 pm PST -- path /create
| bbor wrote:
| 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
| cubefox wrote:
| You clearly aren't much of a doomer yet. There is nothing
| exciting about a looming catastrophe.
| pphysch wrote:
| *laughs in Accelerationism*
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerationism
| MeImCounting wrote:
| 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.
| cubefox wrote:
| 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.
| MeImCounting wrote:
| 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."
| cubefox wrote:
| A species doesn't automatically get more altruistic
| towards other species once it gets smarter. Look at how
| many species humanity drove to extinction.
| MeImCounting wrote:
| 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.
|
| 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.
| siva7 wrote:
| So i guess the next wave of startups has been killed. I'm not
| even sure what kind of startup still makes sense as a gpt thin
| wrapper?
| ethanbond wrote:
| None of them, but here's the thing: they _never_ made any
| sense.
| RobertDeNiro wrote:
| 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.
| constantly wrote:
| 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.
| colesantiago wrote:
| This meme is getting very old and tired.
|
| What kinds have been 'killed' I don't see this anywhere.
| Tankenstein wrote:
| 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.
| BoorishBears wrote:
| ... 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.
| sergiotapia wrote:
| If your startup is just a thin wrapper for GPT, it's DOA
| regardless. Trivial moat is always a trivial moat.
|
| 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.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > 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.
| api wrote:
| Thin wrappers around anything never make much sense. They're
| trivially replaceable.
| audiala wrote:
| Even if they create a great UX/UI? GPT would be like the
| motor of the car, there is still all the structure to build
| around it.
| levmiseri wrote:
| Some use cases are still valid I hope. E.g. content generation
| on a massive scale. An example of that that I'm tinkering with:
| https://meoweler.com
| anigbrowl wrote:
| 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?
| levmiseri wrote:
| This specific manifestation will likely have the fate of a
| digital landfill, but I'm generally excited about the
| prospect of mass content generation in some specific domain
| use case (as long as it's a field where the quality either
| doesn't matter all that much or what GPT4 spits out is
| sufficient).
|
| This particular project is mostly messing around and
| learning how to use the API, but even here I was surprised
| about the overall quality of the generated content.
| tacone wrote:
| It's just commoditization, hard things now becoming a lot
| easier and value proposition to move up elsewhere.
|
| It happened with hardware, operative systems, web tools such as
| maps etc.
| Implicated wrote:
| > Your access to custom GPTs isn't ready yet. We're rolling this
| feature out over the coming days. Check back soon.
|
| > Go to ChatGPT
|
| Sad. Have a real-world use case ready to go and a plus account.
| empath-nirvana wrote:
| Is this basically them deploying fine tuned models? It wouldn't
| be very interesting to just be using custom prompts.
| bbor wrote:
| 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.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > 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.
| bearjaws wrote:
| More specifically, it seems like a RAG (retrieval augmented
| generation) system than fine tuning.
| minimaxir wrote:
| 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.
| teabee89 wrote:
| "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.
| vinni2 wrote:
| I have the same issue, my guess is they are still rolling out.
|
| 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.
| nomel wrote:
| OpenAI is a sane company. They do rollouts for new features.
| joshstrange wrote:
| No, they just lie in their marketing
|
| > 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.
| duxup wrote:
| Is this just the role and content type data being set as you
| might with their dev tools?
| gzer0 wrote:
| 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 3x and 2x 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.
| pvg wrote:
| https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
| ilaksh wrote:
| I can't access the GPTs stuff. I haven't actually got the last
| update either with the combined models or anything.
| runjake wrote:
| https://archive.ph/fEp7m
|
| For others like me that are getting errors accessing the page.
| ilaksh wrote:
| https://chat.openai.com/gpts/editor "You do not currently have
| access to this feature"
| Roritharr wrote:
| Probably a staged rollout once again leaving people outside of
| the US wait.
| ilaksh wrote:
| I mean, I am in the US, have been waiting for the last
| rollout still..
| judge2020 wrote:
| I'm in the US and still don't have it.
| ccakes wrote:
| Ahh.. is that why I've been on the waitlist since day 1 for
| ChatGPT Enterprise?
|
| C'mon OpenAI, we're /trying/ to give you money here!
| chabad360 wrote:
| 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).
| littlestymaar wrote:
| > The best GPTs will be invented by the community
|
| > 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.
| leobg wrote:
| 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.
| glitchc wrote:
| The cynical me thinks the point of calling these GPTs is a ploy
| to trademark the term "GPT".
| leobg wrote:
| Thought the same thing.
| heavyshark wrote:
| Any word on when the GPTs will be available?
| imdsm wrote:
| 1 pm PST
| Y_Y wrote:
| Fuck that, release your models and let the "community" (of unpaid
| volunteers) freely use and own what they create
| rickcarlino wrote:
| 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.
| bparsons wrote:
| Hasn't this been around for a while?
| cafxx wrote:
| Would be nice also if they fixed the ubiquitous "network errors"
| that happen approximately every single time...
| mg wrote:
| So these "GPTs" are the combination of predefined prompts and
| custom API access? Not customly trained LLMs?
|
| If so, I guess you can make such a "GPT" on your own server and
| independent from a specific LLM service by using a prompt like
| ...you have available an API "WEATHER_API". If you need the
| weather for a given city for a given day, please say
| WEATHER_API('berlin', '2022-11-24') and I will give you a
| new prompt including the data you asked for...
|
| Or is there some magic done by OpenAI which goes beyond this?
| BoorishBears wrote:
| If you want to be independent for academic/personal reasons,
| sure you can.
|
| If you want reasoning capabilities that Open Source hasn't
| matched before today, and I'm guessing just got blown out of
| the water on again today... there's no reason to bother.
| mg wrote:
| You don't need to use an open source LLM for the approach I
| described. You can still send the prompts to OpenAI's GPT-4
| or any other LLM which is available as a service.
| BoorishBears wrote:
| What other LLM will compete with GPT-4 Turbo (+ V)? At most
| you're hedging that Anthropic releases a "Claude 2 Turbo (+
| V)": is complicating your setup to such a ridiculous degree
| vs "zero effort" worth it for that?
|
| If things change down the line the fact you invested 5
| minutes into writing a prompt isn't going to be such a huge
| loss anyways, absolutely no reason to roll your own on
| this.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > If things change down the line the fact you invested 5
| minutes into writing a prompt isn't going to be such a
| huge loss anyways
|
| If things change down the road such that your tool (or a
| major potential downstream market for your tool) is
| outside of OpenAI's usage policies, the fact that you
| invested even a few developer-weeks into combining the
| existing open source tooling to support running your
| workload either against OpenAI's models or a toolchain
| consisting of one or more open source models (including a
| multimodal toolchain tied into image generation models,
| if that's your thing) with RAG, etc., is going to be a
| win.
|
| If it doesn't, maybe its a wasted-effort loss, but
| there's lots of other ways it could be a win, too.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > If you want to be independent for academic/personal
| reasons,
|
| Or OpenAI's usage policy limits reasons (either because of
| your direct use, or because of the potential scope of use you
| want to support for downstream users of your GPT, etc.) Yes,
| OpenAI's model is the most powerful around. Yes, it would be
| foolish not to take advantage of it, if you can, in your
| custom tools that depend on _some_ LLM. Depending on your
| use, it may not make sense to be fully and exclusively
| _dependent_ on OpenAI, though.
| burningion wrote:
| That's the thing, we don't know.
|
| The lack of transparency for how the product works behind the
| scenes will most likely make it difficult to build something
| effectively.
| jatins wrote:
| Yeah I don't _think_ there is a lot "magic" in custom GPT.
|
| However creating something like this previously required a
| Jupyter notebook but now just...asking for it. Makes it
| accessible to 10x more people
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| [dupe]
|
| More discussion over here:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38166420
| minimaxir wrote:
| HN generally allows multiple related announcements for keynotes
| such as this.
| tracerbulletx wrote:
| Can anyone explain what "extra knowledge" means specifically? Is
| that like fine tuning? How much data can I give it to learn? How
| much can it retain? Can it be updated over time?
| minimaxir wrote:
| The keynote used a .txt file of a lecture that the user
| uploaded as a data source the model can select from. From a
| technical perspective, it's anoher data source for retrieval-
| augmented generation (RAG) doing a vector search in the
| background:
| https://platform.openai.com/docs/assistants/tools/knowledge-...
| tracerbulletx wrote:
| Ah ok, thank you.
| singularity2001 wrote:
| "optimizes for quality by adding all relevant content to the
| context of model calls." So for their own profits they
| maximize recall and let GPT handle precision.
| Racing0461 wrote:
| I doublt it's fine tuning (actually changing the model
| weights). It's more like "im going to paste a text blob then in
| the following chats i will ask questions about it) type inner
| prompt.
| singularity2001 wrote:
| For longer documents it uses vector embeddings
| ankit219 wrote:
| They showed a demo where you could upload a file while creating
| an agent. As others have answered. I think it's about
| configuring an agent in a way that you give it material on some
| specific topic (one file, multiple files) and it uses Retrieval
| to augment the answer based on the source material.
|
| Google launched Notebook LM[1] a while back which does a
| similar thing conceptually. It allows you to import a Google
| drive folder with docs of the stuff you would want to
| understand and then just chat with it. It's a good product but
| restrictive in the sense that it only allowed Google docs.
|
| [1] https://blog.google/technology/ai/notebooklm-google-ai/
| vunderba wrote:
| The demo just showed a file dialog box where they could upload
| a set of static files. What I'd really like to see is the
| ability to sync a source integration (for example into a GitHub
| repo or a notion account), and it would always pull relevant
| information using a RAG architecture.
| dang wrote:
| Related ongoing threads:
|
| _New models and developer products_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38166420
|
| _OpenAI DevDay, Opening Keynote Livestream [video]_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38165090
| Racing0461 wrote:
| Barrier to entry for commercial or useful GPTs/Plugins/"Agents"
| is almost non-existant since its just a str.concat(hiddenprompt,
| user_prompt), the secret sauce (ie the weights, chat timeout and
| context length) are already generated/limited by OpenAI and they
| already have the content moderation/"hr dept" baked in at the
| weights level. So even if one was to create a "story writer
| helper" GPT, i don't see how it would be of any value generating
| new, unique and interesting content other than the prompt recipes
| we already have on reddit/r/chatgpt (heres 1000 prompts for every
| use case) that creates netflix like plots (inclusively diverse
| casting across ethnicities and orientations, socially conscious
| storylines, modern jargon-filled dialogue, themes of empowerment,
| progressive characters, and non-traditional relationship
| dynamics).
|
| This will most likely be like the google play store with a 99% of
| GPTs being a repackaged public prompt.
| ofermend wrote:
| Excited about GPT4-Turbo and longer sequence lengths. Looking
| forward very much for faster inference. We just released
| Vectara's "Hallucination Evaluation Model" (aka HEM) today
| https://huggingface.co/vectara/hallucination_evaluation_mode...,
| with a leaderboard: https://github.com/vectara/hallucination-
| leaderboard GPT-4 was already in the lead.
|
| Looking forward to seeing GPT4-Turbo there soon.
| rco8786 wrote:
| Does anyone know if this is just a "native" RAG implementation?
| Or if it's actually fine tuned models?
| minimaxir wrote:
| Native RAG, with likely some secret sauce to align the models a
| bit better:
| https://platform.openai.com/docs/assistants/tools/knowledge-...
|
| > Retrieval augments the Assistant with knowledge from outside
| its model, such as proprietary product information or documents
| provided by your users. Once a file is uploaded and passed to
| the Assistant, OpenAI will automatically chunk your documents,
| index and store the embeddings, and implement vector search to
| retrieve relevant content to answer user queries.
| hospitalJail wrote:
| This is sooo nice. What is everyone using for theirs? Here is
| mine
|
| "Be brief, give 10 answers, give probabilities that each answer
| is the best/most correct"
| Vfiorx wrote:
| Make and train your own LLM and you can literally duplicate your
| brain power and productivity. For almost free. Where's everyone's
| digital doubles?
| Vfiorx wrote:
| I don't understand why more people aren't creating digital
| doubles of their brain..? You train your own LLM for practically
| free and have your own digital double to maximize any and all
| productivity. Why is there not more of this?
| bluecrab wrote:
| Startup funeral.
| nojvek wrote:
| Googles: Custom versions of Google.
|
| Anyone can easily build their own Google. No coding is required.
| You can make them for yourself, just for your company's internal
| use, or for everyone. Creating one is as easy as starting a
| conversation, giving it instructions and extra knowledge, and
| picking what it can do, like searching the web, making images or
| analyzing data.
|
| The whole point of ChatGPT was go to one single place for all
| your knowledge needs.
|
| The whole point of Amazon is the largest collections of things
| you can buy and have it delivered to your doorsteps in a few
| days.
|
| I don't want many GPTs. I want one GPT that can reliably digest
| all information available on the internet, understand it,
| organize it and allow me to do useful things with it.
|
| It's the same enshittifaction on Whatsapp that Meta is doing with
| Celebrities AI like SnoopDog AI that are gimmicks.
|
| Please don't build gimmicky features. Leave that to the community
| via integrations.
| jes5199 wrote:
| for a while, adding a custom google search to your website was
| considered a great feature
| BoorishBears wrote:
| https://search.brave.com/goggles/create
|
| https://developers.google.com/custom-search/v1/overview
|
| https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/bing/search-apis/bing-cust...
| vunderba wrote:
| They still have that - it's just regular GPT-4. One immediate
| application about this one is that it makes it trivial to
| create a fine tuned version of GPT based on your data, where
| you can upload a series of documents that can basically act
| like a set of embeddings that augment the regular GPT trained
| data.
| nomel wrote:
| > create a fine tuned version of GPT
|
| No. It's unclear fine-tuning is happening. Many are guessing
| it's RAG.
| gustavopch wrote:
| Being able to have multiple personae could be very useful.
|
| One persona may not give you the answer you're looking for, but
| another one may. I think maybe they should require the GPTs to
| have human names though so people intuitively understand that.
|
| Like, Paul can't help me with this task, so let me ask Monica
| instead.
|
| They could even interact.
| nomel wrote:
| A good example is creative/idea work vs fact work. You don't
| want creative facts, and you don't want fact bounded
| creativity. You either have a prompt ready to paste, to prime
| the conversation/context, or you can use a personality.
|
| One "uber" AI is great, but it requires guidance into the
| context you're interested in, including yourself. For
| example, the default ChatGPT will assume you're uneducated
| about any topic you ask about.
|
| I think this all fits perfectly into what Sam Altman talked
| about in the Lex Friedman podcast: people want an AI that
| fits their own worldview/context. Custom instructions, and
| "about yourself" are good starts, but sometimes you want to
| talk to a chef, and sometimes a scientist.
| gfodor wrote:
| > The whole point of ChatGPT was go to one single place for all
| your knowledge needs.
|
| That's just your own perception. OpenAI is trying to build AGI.
| You entered into the storyline at a specific junction and
| jumped to conclusions based on the limits of your own
| imagination, or something.
| nojvek wrote:
| Right. All I'm sayin is I want the God level AGI, the king of
| kings of AGI.
|
| Allowing me to customize ChatGPT is the same itty bitty
| intelligence, like putting a new mask on ChatGPT.
|
| OpenAI changed their values to 'AGI Focus'. This seems like
| OpenAI losing focus.
| jes5199 wrote:
| they mentioned revenue sharing in the keynote, and I'm eager to
| find out how that is going to work. There isn't much money in the
| $20/month subscription to go around to very many other developers
| ilaksh wrote:
| What I was thinking for my own agent hub thing was to sell
| universal credits and charge per use or token. Then agent
| developers could specify what they want to charge.
| jes5199 wrote:
| that's kinda interesting but I'm not sure it maps well to the
| value added by a GPT app. Like, I'm imagining that I'll do
| old fashioned API work and GPT will the UI layer - sure, the
| tokens are the most expensive part, but the value for the
| customer comes from easy access to whatever is on the backend
| Dowwie wrote:
| Does this summarize to Pre defined custom instructions and
| workflows? What categories of fine tuning are associated with
| this work?
| dongobread wrote:
| I don't think the target market for this is people looking for
| extremely knowledgeable LLMs that can handle deep technical
| tasks, given that you can't even finetune these models.
|
| I'd guess this is more of an attempt to poach the market of
| companies like character.ai. The market for models with a
| distinct character/personality is absolutely massive right now
| (see: app store rankings) and users are willing to spend insane
| amounts of money on it (in part because of the "digital
| girlfriend" appeal).
| crooked-v wrote:
| > digital girlfriend
|
| The ban on "adult themes" is part of the reason people use
| services other than OpenAI for that kind of thing in the first
| place.
| JCharante wrote:
| > ChatGPT Plus now includes fresh information up to April 2023
|
| I'm so happy; I can finally ask questions about expo and trpc and
| get fresh answers. I confirmed this by asking chatgpt about the
| superbowl winners in 2022 & 2023.
| singularity2001 wrote:
| "you can now create custom versions of ChatGPT"
|
| how? login opens unrelated tab.
|
| Found it:
|
| https://chat.openai.com/gpts/discovery -> create own ->
|
| https://chat.openai.com/gpts/editor
| anonymouse008 wrote:
| Is this scary? They said revenue share - it sounds like a
| streaming platform software licensing model. That sounds like
| getting paid much less than 70%.
| m3kw9 wrote:
| So basically selling prompts but openai keeps the prompt a
| secret. Is that it?
| anonu wrote:
| A couple dozen startups just died.
| joshstrange wrote:
| > We've made ChatGPT Plus fresher and simpler to use
|
| > Finally, ChatGPT Plus now includes fresh information up to
| April 2023. We've also heard your feedback about how the model
| picker is a pain. Starting today, no more hopping between models;
| everything you need is in one place. You can access DALL*E,
| browsing, and data analysis all without switching. You can also
| attach files to let ChatGPT search PDFs and other document types.
| Find us at chatgpt.com.
|
| It's so annoying how they say this, I refresh and I still have to
| hop between models. Just say "rolling out over the next week" if
| that's what's happening. I even logged out and back in and still
| the same old way of doing it.
| thih9 wrote:
| Is this going to be openai's moat?
|
| E.g. one popular comment in the submission about twitter's new
| "edgy ai" was that it could be reimplemented as a chatgpt
| prompt[1]. Looks like this is even more relevant now.
|
| [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38148845
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-11-06 21:00 UTC)