I find this terribly disappointing. I mean this basically assures the audience are people who are already quite handy at using LLMs and Chat GPT. Most of the reason for using a more streamlined GPT is to help users who aren’t prompt engineers get the information they are looking for. It also means that the audience is essentially made up of geeks.
Remember that ChatGPT Team and ChatGPT Enterprise can also use the custom GPTs so that is a lot of users who really have no idea what an hallucation even means.
It definitely doesn’t mean that, real geeks make their own specialised prompts and RAG database.
You were clearly looking forward to the GPT store launching, why not just pay the $20/month?
Because everything doesn’t have to be a giant cash grab. If they’re smart enough to come up with such a sophisticated LLM, they could come up with a way to raise funds rather than having the average Joe cough up money just to access a custom GPT that someone else created.
This is the second time you comment on one of my posts in an unhelpful manner. Unless you consider “white Knighting” for openAi as helpful. Pretty weird dude
And I am a paying member which should be quite obvious
Yeah! I like that. I’m going to start using it!
I think you have a misinformed view of who the ChatGPT Plus user base is.
There are absolutely “geeks” to be sure. But, there are artists, creative writers, retirees, college students, highly technical people, and those who know nothing about AI other than they find value in it.
There is a whole wide spectrum of users out there waiting for you to reach out and offer them something novel and interesting.
You do them and yourself a disservice by disparaging them all as “geeks.”
Here I strongly disagree. I think the core instructions to a GPT do not really bring much value. Most people don’t need hyper-engineered prompts to get something more-or-less exactly what they’re looking for.
Value-added GPTs will have knowledge files which give the model information it wouldn’t otherwise have and actions which do the same and more.
If your business plan is to go after low-hanging fruit of a good custom instruction to get the model to respond in a very specific way, the march of progress will eat your lunch.
As the models continue to improve their ability to understand and fulfil user requests prompt engineering will mostly disappear and be relegated to only the most niche of tasks.
I think you’re very short sighted but thanks for the business advice.
Also, I don’t mean “geeks” in a derogatory way. I mean someone who goes all in on something. As in someone willing to pay 20 dollars a month for an AI bot. There will be a huge industry for B2B stuff but if you just look at the “custom GPTs” OpenAi themselves have created, I don’t see anything worth paying 20 dollars a month for when ChatGPT is free. I work on tech and I’m the only one of my friends actually paying for the Plus membership.
That is quite the charge to level at someone invoking the march of progress in their argument.
Well, people pay $20 / month for access to GPT-4 which isn’t free. The GPTs might just be a nice bonus for some people.
It’s clear were not getting anywhere, so I’m going to disengage at this point.
I wish you luck, friend!
This is a good point. I think GPTs that connect to APIs will be the most useful for Plus users.
I really wondered what the business model might be and, turns out, there isn’t one.
Look, the term ‘market’ is ancient. Things are bought and sold in markets. What is being bought and sold in this custom gpt market? Where is money changing hands?
If custom GPT’s had been marketed as ‘shared toolboxes’, I would have felt much better with their introduction. I don’t know who decides these things, but language matters. If you don’t mind disappointing your core users, feel free to continue bait and switching.
I generally agree with this. Maybe a better strategy OpenAI should employ would be “try GPTs free for 30 days”, to get people hooked and start paying the monthly fee after the trial ends.
However, ChatGPT is for “everyone”, geeks and non-geeks, but the API (which is here) is where the real geeks live
I fully agree. Why do users of the GPT prompt builders need the same license? this doesn’t make sense at all
You can charge for your GPTs, no?
How would they pay you if there were free users?