|
|
|
|
|
|
by planckscnst
6 hours ago
|
|
|
$100/month * 12 months is 1200/year. Yeah, normal working people even in the USA don't have that extra money to spend. And let's be realistic: anyone doing the "greenhouse" method probably has both Anthropic and OpenAI $200/month subscriptions, otherwise, this is going to use up your tokens pretty fast. So $4800/year to have this as a normal practice that you do. The median household income in the US is $64000/year. |
|
|
I've run a broad `/goal` on a $20 subscription. Sure it will time out faster than on a $100 one. Just as $100 vs $200. But it can still quite surprisingly achieve "greenhouse" like effects.
Given the credit boosts and other promotions this can at times be extra effective. It is still an amazing capability for a pretty low price point. Some people if they really get going will chain $20 subscriptions together while avoiding the $100. Still relatively affordable.
It just isn't true these tools or even the "greenhouse" method is out of reach. You simply went up to the most expensive consumer model to try to make a point that is belied by something many of us have noticed - the amount of non-coders (people who don't have $4800 a year to spend) iterating on ideas using these tools. Using capabilities that for a long time would have been completely out of their reach.
It's a pretty weak argument to claim something is unaffordable while arbitrarily picking the most expensive version of said thing as your baseline, without any real justification beyond your own sense of "and let's be realistic". Basing this on nothing more than "their tokens/session will run out faster" sounds like the sort of "disconnected and privileged notion" someone who thinks they can only get by with the $200 would say. The glaring nature in which you levied your criticism, coupled now with this sort of logic, is again suggestive of pretty severe misdirection.