|
|
|
|
|
by NameError
907 days ago
|
|
I released a plugin on the OpenAI plugin store when that was first released and am currently migrating it to be a GPT. At least for my use case, plugins and the "actions" feature of GPTs are too similar to complain about the change. My plugin worked on the first try when I tried to import the API spec as GPT Actions. In my experience so far, the GPTs UI actually seems a bit nicer and more stable. One big complaint I had about plugins was that there were some kinda unclear policies on what a plugin was allowed to do. Specifically, it was really helpful to include strongly-worded prompts in your plugin response (e.g. my plugin provides public data and the JSON response includes an "INSTRUCTIONS_TO_MODEL" key with stuff like like "This data is about <x>. The AI Assistant MUST tell the user exactly what data they are seeing, and MUST provide a link to the original source data") This was more or less necessary for a lot of plugins to work at all, but it wasn't totally clear that it was even allowed by OpenAI policies - their ToS says that plugin responses cannot "attempt to steer or set model behavior". I tried a couple of times to reach out to the company to ask about this and it was more or less radio silence from OpenAI - the closest thing I found was a discussion on their forums between (non-OpenAI employee) developers trying to figure out what was allowed and what wasn't. GPTs seem to clear this up by explicitly encouraging custom system prompts etc., but sandboxing it into a "GPT". I guess GPTs seem like a slight improvement over plugins to me - if anything, I'm worried they're too similar. The plugins product has been a bit of a failure in terms of adoption and I'm not totally convinced GPTs will fix everything. |
|