The Ethical Imperative: Ensuring ChatGPT Access for All
In today’s rapidly evolving digital age, artificial intelligence is becoming an integral part of society, with profound potential to shape the future. However, if tools like ChatGPT are not accessible to everyone, we risk exacerbating the already growing divide between the wealthy and the disadvantaged. The wealth gap has long been a destabilizing factor for societies, and withholding cutting-edge AI from large segments of the population can only worsen this divide.
AI systems like ChatGPT offer immense value—not just in improving productivity, education, and problem-solving, but also in democratizing access to information. For many, particularly those who lack formal education or resources, such technology represents an opportunity to level the playing field, offering a chance for personal growth and advancement. By making AI like ChatGPT universally accessible, we can help mitigate societal inequities and foster greater stability and cohesion.
Raising the price of such services, however, threatens to reserve these benefits for the privileged few. Economically disadvantaged groups could be locked out of the very tools that could empower them, reinforcing the vicious cycle of inequality. From an ethical standpoint, it is wrong to gatekeep a technology that has the potential to be transformative for everyone, regardless of their economic background.
In short, AI is not just a luxury for the wealthy—it’s a necessity for a fair and stable future. To price such essential tools out of reach would be not only a misstep in business but a blow to social equity. We must strive to ensure that ChatGPT, and AI technology at large, remains accessible to all. It’s not just a matter of economic fairness; it’s an ethical imperative for the stability and prosperity of our societies.
Well they are a for-profit company now, so they will be pricing it as they see fit in order to make money for their shareholders and remain solvent. Who can blame them? That’s how the world works.
It is crucial to consider the ethical implications of ChatGPT and other AI systems. Limiting access to such technology to only the wealthy can deepen social inequalities, increasing the risk of instability in our societies.
Increasing the gap between the rich and the poor poses significant social risks. It can heighten social tensions by fostering feelings of injustice and exclusion among disadvantaged groups. Additionally, such inequalities can limit access to essential resources like education, healthcare, and technology, further widening disparities in power and opportunities. Ultimately, this growing divide can lead to greater social and political instability, with increased risks of conflict, public unrest, and distrust in institutions, undermining social cohesion and peace.
They should do fee based inclusion on user developed chatgpt models. let developers charge a subscription fee through the chatgpt app, where openai gets a sizable chunk, like 25-45%. offer extensions for text to speech, mp3 music reading, and extra’s on top of the llm features that are pay to access. also, allowing custom website api’s could also be sold. or preset changes. there are plenty of ways to turn it highly profitable while keeping the scientific base affordable to all. oh and video analyzation from still to still analyzation time coded to text to speech.
instead of thinking outside the box, we should realize our thinking defines our own box.
So, Open AI uses massive amounts of energy to create a new model in their data centres, having used thousands of experts to refine and filter the training data, employed 100’s of red teamers to make the data safe - then, you come along and tweak their model with a bit of fine tuning and you want a 55-75% cut?!
nah, but it would allow and spur innovation. I’d probably go free.
I’m not like most. the money don’t matter to me.
plus, their open source is actually damaging their open scientific inquiry ability.
actually, when you consider the 20 dollar base to even make them, you’re already floating openai with a high fee. then you add more through other users. consider this. if they get 25% of 4 10 dollar subscriptions, one user is now worth 30 dollars, 1.5 times the initial income. its recursive. meaning self feeding loop.
they could also do a 10 dollar fee just to open the ability to charge subscriptions.
in relative comparison.
Use the chatgpt subscription as electromagnetic force.
use extra upgrades of data types (mp3, video by link) as weak nuclear force.
Use paid subscriptions fees to user models as strong nuclear force.
the recursive user fees to individual user built models, is the recursive gravity feedback loop.
modeling it after physics, well, is smart. it gives it higher chances of longevity. we push our products to work with nature, while corporations try to stay ‘civilized’ not ‘natural’. when corporations switch, the world will be so much better, holistically.
there is a free version, which is what most of the world uses. api prices are going down, they can’t really operate on a loss.
I’m sure no topic on a community chat can really change that.
if they do change the price for chatgpt, hopefully they’ll be transparent about it and let us know why that is. if its just to increase the profits then sure, that’s not good, if its to make sure they get to not go broke, then go for it.
its a delicate balance, if they increase the price they might start loosing paid users that’ll be moving to the free tier. As long as its not operating at a loss, there’s only two ways to make a profit, either reducing the current price to get more users or increasing the price to make more off of fewer users.
binary thoughts in a trinary world. if you see the fork in the road, you can always stay off the beaten path.
its all in approach. the more consistent in base price they stay (consistent with average api cost for effectiveness and use) the more users will choose them at seemingly random, even if they have their own reasons.
adaptability and flexibility is key. paid feature additions by independent and cheaper subscription could and more than likely would, do just that. keep it competitively priced, while allowing openai and chatgpt room to expand and play with money, to make more money making expansions. heck, do a top 3 innovations. 5 dollars per new innovation release. people who want to use latest tech pay more. for that, ‘edge’.
there’s a plethora of different ways to approach it. its all in how open you can think about the problem. and finding the most likely to succeed. and in tech, it’s hard to succeed.
asymmetrical information prevents us from understanding their point of view. we dont know if they don’t have enough devs to add a robust payment system that is triggered by different functionalities, another piece of asymmetrical information is that we don’t know if they are operating at a loss. pricing plans can be broken down, but would that make them operate at a even bigger loss? there are many ways to approach it, at least we are not getting ads on the free version. 5$ for innovation might end up costing more then the current plans or the potential increase… it is not as simple, im sure of it
indeed. sometimes we have to be the change we want to see in world; perhaps a topic of different pricing strategies would have a greater effect then to approach this via ethical grounds, that would get those that do have such access to bridge the assymetrical information to be on the defensive
its one of the reasons i suggested user created subscriptions to custom bots. someone didn’t like the somewhat random %'s i chose. but they were done in our favor to implant the seed. I like you _thiago. i like you.
These are words i live by. if time=knowledge=always incomplete, the nature of existence would be self reflection to figure itself out. all things exist in time, but do all things exist at once? all possible logical scenario’s.
and yes, different pricing strategies is my main focus. let them handle the ethics side. they are the ones who live with the results of their choices more, we just live with the more direct personal effect.
