• Wren@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    20 hours ago

    Don’t forget that you can give it a face and tell it to describe a blowjob to you and tell you you’re loveable.

    • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      16 hours ago

      Yo wait what? This is the moment I realized I actually have matured some. 20 years ago I would have loved that feature, curated literotica would have been straight up my ally. Now I’m just like huh, guess I wasn’t even horny enough to think of that anymore. I’m just tired, and that seems like more work than I’d like… Maybe my testosterone levels are just low

    • merc@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      13 hours ago

      And the subscribers are underpaying by such a huge amount that they’re losing even more money from them than they are from the unpaid users.

    • realitaetsverlust@piefed.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      21 hours ago

      Honestly, having ~1.3% of paying users is fine considering they are using all the other users as free learning material for their models.

    • GreenShimada@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      40
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      It’s like Google, Facebook, and Microsoft don’t exist.

      Let’s say it together, kids: “If the service is free, then you’re the…?”

        • REDACTED@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 day ago

          The companies are stroking it to get the valuable juice out, and then steal your orgasm too. All you’re left with drinking more water to sustain that.

    • Seth Taylor@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      The paid subscribers subsidize the unpaid ones. Sam Altman is a staunch socialist. Trump too, that communist-loving Mamdani fan. /s

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        19 hours ago

        The paid subscribers subsidize the unpaid ones.

        Even for paying customers, inference alone costs OpenAI several times more than revenue.

    • Dave@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      What’s a normal amount? What proportion of people with Dropbox or Google Docs or Hotmail are paying customers?

      Having a little over 1% doesn’t seem that bad, I am faar more surprised that over 1% of users pay for ChatGPT (if your numbers are accurate).

      • Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        What proportion of people with Dropbox or Google Docs or Hotmail are paying customers?

        Dropbox is nice enough to list it.

        They have 700m users, and 18m of them pay for the service, so about double of OpenAI. Completely unlike OpenAI, however, they make quite a bit of profit, having a revenue of 2.55b and 1.63b in operating costs. OpenAI subscribers can’t even cover their own cost of inference.

        • aski3252@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          15 hours ago

          however, they make quite a bit of profit

          Pretty sure they didn’t for a while. It’s the same approach as always. Operate at a loss, gain (nonpaying) users, maybe sell or use their data and slowly turn up whatever you are doing to make money (ads, fee).

          • Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            7 hours ago

            Sure, it took dropbox 9 years, Amazon took 7.

            OpenAI just turned 10, with profit nowhere in sight, and a path to profitability completely invisible.

        • Dave@lemmy.nz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 day ago

          Thanks for the numbers, you were saying the subscriber percentage was embarrassing so I was curious about that rather than their fairly infamous losses.

          You’ve said OpenAI have about half the subscriber percentage of Dropbox, but if Dropbox is that profitable then that seems like they are doing particularly well and perhaps that subscriber percent is above average?

          • Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            edit-2
            1 day ago

            Peope don’t usually compare OpenAI with Dropbox, but Dropbox isn’t particularly great with the free-to-paid converion rating. 2.6% is pretty bad, but they STILL manage to make money because what they do is pretty cheap on a per-user basis. They just host data, and most of that data isn’t really used much. Also, I don’t know if Dropbox is “that” profitable. All I could find is that their revenue exceeds their operating costs, but I don’t know if that covers R&D or marketing, which they probably spend a LOT of money on.

            Comparisons with YouTube and Spotify get thrown around a lot more, which convert around 5% and a whoppingly insane 36%, compared to OpenAI’s measly 1%. And both YouTube and Spotify actually make a LOT of money on their “free” users, via ads. OpenAI has no monetisation beyond subscribers, and they’re very bad at getting people to pay for their stuff.

            • Dave@lemmy.nz
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 day ago

              Yeah that’s a fair point. I don’t think Dropbox does ads but the others I mentioned and the ones you mentioned all show/play ads for the free tier.

              I guess OpenAI will be pretty keen to get ads into their free tier too, once they run out of investors’ money.

  • Saapas@piefed.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 day ago

    It’s pretty nice that you can ask conversationally. Easier to do searches

    • AmbitiousProcess (they/them)@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      In my experience at least, there has not once been an instance where an LLM was able to find answers on Reddit more reliably than I could, and I’ve been using LLMs since before ChatGPT was even a thing. (though granted, most web-search compatible LLMs came later on)

      I think it will probably be better than the average user, since a lot of people simply aren’t that great at using search engines very effectively in the first place, but I wouldn’t call the answers “practically impossible to find.”

      • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        16 hours ago

        I read that as being a shot at their internal search feature sucking, which it did for a long time, not sure what it is like now. It was easier to search Google to find things on reddit for a while there.

        • AmbitiousProcess (they/them)@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          17 hours ago

          True. I’ve found DuckDuckGo to still be pretty good though, especially for forum searches, at least in my experience.

          I use Kagi now, which is even better, for me at least, but that’s paid and I know most people aren’t gonna shell out money every month for a search engine.

    • ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 day ago

      Just use a different search engine! Just because it’s called “googling”, does not mean you have to use Google.