Nice, nothing demonstrates the Dunning-Kruger effect quite like a string of insults.

For whatever its worth, that argument is exceedingly weak. I'll let you brainstorm on why that might be. I don't have interest in debating with someone who so obviously lacks tact.

>They are making money somehow

Extremely doubtful. Microsoft went in for $10B at a $29B valuation. We have seen pre-revenue companies IPO for far more than that. Microsoft's $10B deal is probably the only thing keeping them afloat.

>Hence the space is ripe for tons of competition

I think you should look up which big tech companies already offer chatbots. You'll find the space is already very competitive. Sure, they aren't large, generative language models, but they target the B2C market that ChatGPT is attempting to compete in.

That seems to be the gist of this entire thread. This is the first API most of /r/machinelearning have heard of so it must be best on the market. /s

To your point, there are companies who have been developing speech-to-text for decades. The capability is so unremarkable that most (all?) cloud providers have a speech-to-text offering already and it easily integrates with their other services.

I know this is a hot take, but I don't think OpenAI has a business strategy. They're deploying expensive models that directly compete with entrenched, big tech companies. They can't be thinking they're going to take market share away from GCP, AWS, Azure with technologies that all three offer already, right? Right???

>I guess you haven’t visited any B2C websites in the last 5 years.

I have and that is exactly my point. The main use case is B2C websites, NOT individuals, and there are already very mature products in that space. OpenAI needs to develop a lot of bells, whistles, and integration points with existing technologies (salesforce, service now, etc.) before they can be competitive in that market.

>can translate between human languages

Very valuable, but Google and Microsoft both offer this for free.

>between computer languages

This is niche, but it does seem like an untapped, albeit small, market.

>can compose marketing

Also niche. That being said, would it save time? Marketing materials are highly curated.

>summarise text...

Is this a problem a regular person would pay to have fixed? The maximum input size is 2048 tokens / ~1,500 words / three pages. Assuming an average person pastes in the maximum input, they're summarizing material that would take them 6 minutes to read (Google is saying the average person reads 250 words per minutes). Mind you it isn't saving 6 minutes, they still need to read all of the content ChatGPT produces. Wouldn't the average person just skim the document if they wanted to save time?

To your point, it is clearly a capable technology, but that wasn't my argument. There have been troves of capable technologies that were ultimately unprofitable. While I believe it can be successful in the B2C market, I don't think the value proposition is nearly as strong for individuals.

Anyhow, only time will tell.

>I have no idea how OpenAI can make money on this.

Personally, I don't think they can. What is the main use case for chat bots? How many people are going to pay $20/month to talk to a chatbot? I mean, chatbots aren't exactly new... anybody who wanted to chat with one before ChatGPT could have and yet there wasn't an industry for it. Couple that with it not being possible to know whether its answers are fact or fiction and I just don't see the major value proposition.

I'm not overly concerned one way or another, I just don't think the business case is very strong.

I'm not sure how you're calculating it out, but AWS does have serverless inference and there is a free tier for it. In fact, the first 150,000 seconds of serverless inference are free.