Lack of Transparency: Users are not clearly informed about usage limits, making it difficult to manage expectations.
Sudden Restrictions: Unexpected limitations during extended use disrupt workflow and reduce the premium experience.
Value vs. Cost: Service Quality vs. Subscription Cost
While the Plus subscription offers better performance than the free version, imposed limitations prevent it from fully feeling like a premium service. Users expect unrestricted, high-performance access when paying for a subscription. Unexpected constraints can be frustrating, especially for those relying on the service for continuous and in-depth interactions. Aligning service quality with user expectations would enhance the overall experience.
Ineffective Feedback Channels: Users struggle to report issues and receive timely responses from OpenAI.
Improvement Suggestions:
• Provide clearer information on usage limits.
• Adjust restrictions to better align with the subscription cost.
• Ensure proactive communication about limitations.
• Enhance feedback mechanisms for better user support.
Addressing these issues could significantly improve user satisfaction and the overall experience.
This depends highly on what you put onto the API. Let’s say you ask 03-mini to greet you with a short “hi” every time you type “1”.
I mean the API behind it is paid based on how many tokens each request needs and I would assume that ChatGPT has to pay money to use the API. Which then means when you push a novel on each request you will produce higher costs for them (and also use up a swimming pool of water per day for cooling and energy doesn’t grow on trees either).
I am using o3-mini over the API when I run out of plus requests and just for personal chatting with it I pay up to 15$ per day (should get pro maybe).
I think when they put something like “you have X token left until you get into pause mode” would still be nice. But that is also not easily to program if you ask me… and it would produce more costs for servers that keep track on that for hundrets of millions of users - which then might lead to even less requests - so you could trade requests for transparancy - I don’t think anyone really would want that.
And I would also assume that they give you some extra token when servers are not fully loaded. With transparency this would not be possible. So I am absolutely against it and trust them that what you get when you run into limits constantly is a loss for OpenAI or ChatGPT or whoever has to pay what to avoid taxes and regulation problems of the Nonprofit structure
Dear brother, thank you for your comments, maybe you are right about the reasons you mentioned regarding transparency. I also feel sorry that artificial intelligence has to spend more water on cooling in order to serve everyone in this way. I also wish there was a different solution for this service. I also want you to know that some users do not use it only to obtain something scientific or to produce something, some use it only as a friend or chat. Some people use it for scientific research. Some people can find important things as a result of these researches, some can reach very important conclusions. But after all, users do not always have to know how this service is provided. There are two sides to the story. Buyers expect better service and servers try to do their best for this service. But I wish both parties were clearly aware of each other and the difficulties they face. This is probably not possible. In this case, servers should clearly state what they do and how they do it. Sincerely
Of course, those who have mental problems can also be users. People can even marry a tree today. But this software can also act like a kind of psychotherapist, and this can have positive effects for some people. But as you pointed out, as education is required in every subject, perhaps societies should also be educated on this artificial intelligence. But still, a Plus subscriber wants to know how long it takes to complete a manuscript that he is trying to complete with its current useability features. Finally, he may want to know how long he will be late due to limits. Regards
Imagine you go to a bakery and make a 20$ flatrate contract for bread. How much bread do you think you can take from that flatrate? Can you build a railroad and start filling a never ending train? And will you tell them you want more transparency why the loading of the containers is so slow and they need to put their recipies online and everything?
It is a 20$ subscription - not a premium service… It is literally the lowest package you can buy.
Dear brother! Maybe you’re right about what you said, but even though I haven’t had such a review, I guess not everyone may have the opportunity or the power to become a pro user like you. Also, if a review is made, most of the subscriptions can be Plus subscriptions right now. If this is the case, you should not see the Plus subscription as worthless in terms of subscription. Because although it is a subscription with a $24 dollar with taxes, it may cover a large part of a large income in terms of number. Why do you recommend subscriptions that will charge more high fees in your comments? Can there be a personal situation?
I have no idea what OpenAI has to do with your personal situation.
You have a personal situation? Then change it. Might be a hard fight. But you have to take it.
There are billions of people who can’t read and have no access to clean water and internet. Let’s fix their life first - your problems are yours.
You have very optimistic ideas. Congratulations. I don’t have a personal problem with openAi. I just wanted to make some suggestions. I don’t understand why you criticise so much. Are you an OpenAI employee? Even so, you could give more reasonable answers to every suggestion. If you think openAI has caused great damage to nature, please start a legal battle on this issue.
Sincerely
I don’t know if I was doing this if I was an employee of OpenAI. I can’t say my own oppinion? I mean you started something and I answered and you answered again and so did I. You’ve already stated your oppinion.
Why do you think mine is more or less valuable than yours?
you think my first answer wasn’t reasonable? Think again.
For example, you said, “When you send a novel-sized data in each request,” I wonder if you can also be sending roman-sized data? Or where did you come to the conclusion that I did this? Apart from this, I would like to thank you for the information you have provided about the way GPT works. But I see some of your statements as perceivable by others as cynical and biased
* note to myself: Should really not say “you” in examples but “someone”.
People who send less text per message on average might get more requests because that is cheaper for OpenAI. Are you aware that OpenAI actually produces huges losses by providing this service too cheap?
First of all, thank you for taking the time to share your insights and provide detailed explanations. It seems that you are highly active on the OpenAI forum and spend a significant amount of time here. I believe you deserve to be compensated for the effort you put into this platform? Honestly, I was curious whether you receive any financial benefit for the considerable time you invest.
Additionally, I am also curious about how the sarcastic and somewhat mocking tone in your messages benefits you. Do you think this approach makes your arguments more effective, or is it simply your personal communication style? While having a direct and straightforward communication style is certainly your right, at times, it seems that this approach might shift discussions away from a more constructive framework.
Moreover, based on our previous exchanges, I would like to offer some constructive criticism: While your explanations are technically strong, I have noticed that you tend to respond rather sharply to certain personal remarks. Perhaps adopting a more open and flexible approach toward different perspectives could be beneficial both for yourself and for the overall quality of discussions.
Once again, thank you, and I wish you a great day.
