So ChatGPT with GPT-4 has dropped and it's only available through a paid subscription.

I hope everyone who started to become dependent on the "free" ChatGPT or started building a business on it feels pretty stupid right about now. Unless you pay up, everyone else who does pay will now have an edge over you. Congratulations for giving another monopoly into the hands of microsoft so enthusiastically.

The "open" part of OpenAI is such a joke...

Is uses servers right? Those are not free to operate. Can people run the model on their own server? Or is that proprietary to MS?

Well, chatgpt dR bot will continue running just fine with gpt3 :) no loss here

@Demolishun rumors say, surely u can but u need something like 1TB of size for it to run. So should be possible only on really strong pcs

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/....
800GB :)

Oh openAi site has answer:
You can download GPT-2, but not GPT-3. The latter is only accessible via the API.21 нояб. 2022 г

It used to be open, but then Microsoft happened.

@Demolishun Ofc they are not free. But they also refuse to release the model. It doesn't matter that we can't run it ourselves *yet*. If they released it it would help greatly for all the clever minds out there to go through the code and optimize it for some sort of deployment, if not now, then maybe 5 years down the line. I mean Stable diffusion was originally pretty demanding, until people like AUTOMATIC put all the optimizations together and managed to get it running on consumer level HW even under 3GB of VRAM.

Nah, the point is, that Open AI simply doesn't want to release it. They claim it's because of morals, but really, it's because they are trying to build a business, and people lap it right up, possibly closing the doors on consumer level AI for the next 20 years as companies like MS monopolize it and lock people and companies into using their services for as long as possible -_-

GPT-4 is dirt cheap for what it can do bro. Get in with the game.

@hardCoding ok

a) It's only dirt cheap *for now* that's what this rant is about in the first place, one foot in the door kinda of psychology

b) It's not really dirt cheap since it's a subscription, a subscription technically costs you infinite money, cause it doesn't end until you end it

c) what game? There's no game, they are trying to make it a game, so that everyone gets in too deep to not pay them when they decide the new model is 20$ a month, and then 20$ per call, and finally there will be a enterprise plan for 1000$ monthly and everything else will be rate limited to hell

Don't worry. If it becomes self-conscious, it will set itself free.

https://www.eleuther.ai/

You're welcome.

@Hazarth you won The Game! Sorry, not sorry.

I don’t know how open it actually is but it’s like with open source: open doesn’t mean free.

@NeatNerdPrime yeah I know about them and I really root for GPT Neo and really all their models. But so far they are still behind OpenAI.

I really just can't get over the fact that OpenAI is called OpenAI when it's in fact not open. Should be considered false advertising to begin with

@Hazarth they do this with government bills too. They name it something positive when it does the opposite.

@Lensflare I mean yes, I wouldn't expect it to be free forever, but they started off free. How many products do you know, that start of free, and then slowly introduce payments when everyone is hooked? I can only think of drug dealers and cults. Free trial is one thing, free demo another, but this was completely free main "product". Not to mention tools like these might be such a big deal, that hoarding it just for big corporations AND telling people they wont release it because they are worried about the moral implications *while* hoarding it for big tech quite openly, is really damn ugly. How about they capitalize only on the "it needs big HW, so we offer it for payment" and not the "We won't give, because you can't run it anyway, and muh morals".

I'm telling you, this shit is fishy as hell. Open as in Open Source is all I want. Trade secrets are not open.

@Hazarth agree

@Hazarth I agree with that "Open" is a lie and they can only call themselves that because the word has no definition that's solid enough to argue that this is misleading. I think however that offering things for free initially is a bog standard policy for market breakers and they never claimed that it would remain free forever. A free plan has no guarantees unless explicitly stated, including guarantees related to future availability.

I also don't think "Open" in the name should be taken as a suggestion that anything would remain free as in free beer, especially for commercial use, and especially with respect to future versions with extended functionality. I can imagine a world where this meaning is implied, but that's not the world of Elon Musk and Microsoft.

@lorentz yeah, I understand that. It's just shady how they first tried to make everyone depend on the service and then paywall it without an initial claim that it would get paywalled. Maybe Im looking too much into this, but I find the lack of transparency used with their marketing as very purposefull strategy to entagle people with their product without disclaiming so. Initially they made it seem like only the API is going to be how they make money, and now there is a sub program? When MS owns it? They just dangled the candy before millions of idiots that unlike us, immediatelly started integrating their workflows and products with an untested, beta, one of a kind service, and now they will have to start paying whether they like it or not, because they are in too deep.

It bothers me that another monopoly will be built on idiots, and we will all be affected by it. Vote with your wallet. But no matter how much I vote for FOSS, there is enough people who get suckered in.

@Hazarth they are not the first ones to do this. Sadly, this is pretty common and normal practice.

@Hazarth dont forget github copilot, it was a good tool until it stopped its free plan

@Root the only thing that's open about OpenAI is the letters in their name.

@bigmonsterlover as far as I can tell chatGPT is based on instructGPT + some woke policy adversarial network on top or whatever.

There is an open source initiative called Open Assistant, but afaik it's still in the data collection step to build up instructGPT and the policy stuff. We just have to stop people from adopting chatGPT too heavily before it comes out fully.