| I suspect they're a bit like Google... wonderful tech but terrible product company. Everything outside of the quality of their models is suspect: - GPTs are super quirky w/ weird limitations... try processing an image file larger than an emoji from base 64 text and watch it render the base64 string in a code window and give up after about 1k tokens. The vast majority of the time it doesn't even try and hallucinates processing what it thinks a file related to the context of the GPT would do. - The assistants API is a black box of inefficiency and out of control costs due to a propensity to barf huge amounts of context from problematic RAG, etc. Yet it's not obvious in real time because there is no token consumption information like the normal chat API. It's almost like they rolled it out like this to destroy developer trust on the spot by doing a 'gotcha' to anyone naive to roll this out to prod without sufficient testing. I'm honestly unsure how GPTs will in fact be monetized. Are purchasers required to have a Plus account w/ sellers getting a one time sale? Will sellers have to pay extra usage fees, or a shared subscription type thing split between them and OpenAI? I think they should just give up on this area of the business. Dev day produced some anxiety by encroaching on the business models of a large segment of newly funded AI startups... then showing the efforts to be half-baked while encouraging more lock-in just is going to erode trust and uptake on API usage in general, possibly having people be relieved when Google Gemini and similar efforts are unveiled in the coming months. |
i couldn't have said it better, something i've been feeling for a long time. they have all the engineering expertise, why not the same for product?
it's even more surprising given Altman's ycom experience, it's not like this is a classic engineer-run corp