Connect with us

Technology

Will people really pay $200 a month for a new OpenAI chatbot?

Published

on

On Thursday, OpenAI released a $200-a-month chatbot — and the AI ​​community wasn’t quite sure what to make of it.

The company’s new ChatGPT Pro plan gives you access to “o1 pro mode,” which OpenAI says “uses more processing power to get the best answers to your toughest questions.” An improved version of OpenAI’s o1 reasoning model, o1 pro mode, should answer questions related to science, math and coding in a more “robust” and “comprehensive” way, OpenAI says.

Almost immediately, people began asking him to attract unicorns:

Advertisement

And design a “crab-based” computer:

And wax poetry concerning the meaning of life:

But many people on X didn’t seem convinced that o1 pro replies were within the $200 range.

“Has OpenAI provided any specific examples of hints that failed in regular o1 but succeeded in o1-pro?” he asked British computer scientist Simon Willison. “I want to see a single specific example that shows his advantage.”

Advertisement

It’s a reasonable query; in spite of everything, it’s the most costly chatbot subscription on the planet. The service comes with other advantages, reminiscent of removal of rate limits and unlimited access to other OpenAI models. But $2,400 a 12 months is not bullshit, and the worth proposition of the o1 pro mode specifically stays unclear.

It didn’t take long to search out the failure cases. O1 pro mode has problems with Sudoku and is interrupted by an optical illusion joke that is clear to any human being.

OpenAI’s internal tests show that o1 pro mode performs only barely higher than standard o1 for coding and math problems:

Advertisement
Image credits:OpenAI

OpenAI conducted a “more stringent” evaluation in the identical tests to reveal the consistency of o1 pro mode: a model was only considered to have solved a query if it answered accurately in 4 out of 4 cases. But even in these tests the development was not dramatic:

OpenAI o1-pro mode
Image credits:OpenAI

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman once wrote that OpenAI is on the correct track path “towards an intelligence too cheap to measure” – he was forced to achieve this explain many times on Thursday that ChatGPT Pro is not for most people.

“Most users will be very happy with o1 at (ChatGPT) Plus!” – he said in X. “Almost everyone will be best served by our free tier or Plus tier.”

So who is that this for? Are there really people who’re willing to pay $200 a month to ask questions on toys like “Write a 3-paragraph essay about strawberries without using the letter “e”” Or “solve this Mathematical Olympiad task“? Will they happily part with their hard-earned money, with little guarantee that the usual o1 won’t have the option to satisfactorily answer the identical questions?

I asked Ameet Talwalkar, associate professor of machine learning at Carnegie Mellon and enterprise partner at Amplify Partners, for his opinion. “I think it’s a big risk to raise the price tenfold,” he told TechCrunch by email. “I think in just a few weeks we’ll have a much better sense of the appetite for this functionality.”

Advertisement

UCLA computer scientist Guy Van den Broeck was more candid in his assessment. “I don’t know if this price makes sense,” he told TechCrunch, “and whether expensive reasoning models will be the norm.”

The generous view is that that is a marketing mistake. Describing o1 pro mode as one of the best at solving “toughest problems” doesn’t say much to potential customers. Neither unclear statements about how the model can “think longer” and reveal “intelligence”. As Willison points out, without concrete examples of the supposedly improved capabilities, it’s hard to justify paying more in any respect, much less ten times the value.

As far as I do know, the target market is experts in specialized fields. OpenAI says it plans to supply a handful of medical researchers from “leading institutions” with free access to ChatGPT Pro, which is able to include o1 pro mode. Errors are of paramount importance in healthcare and, as Bob McGrew, former research director of OpenAI, stated: excellent on X, greater reliability might be the important unlock of o1 pro mode.

McGrew too he thought o1 pro mode is an example of what he calls “intelligence overhang”: users (and maybe modelers) do not know learn how to extract value from “additional intelligence” as a consequence of the basic limitations of a easy, text-based interface. As with other OpenAI models, the one strategy to interact with o1 pro mode is thru ChatGPT, and – in response to McGrew – ChatGPT just isn’t perfect.

However, it’s also true that $200 sets high expectations. Judging by its early reception on social media, ChatGPT Pro is not exactly a hit.


This article was originally published on : techcrunch.com
Advertisement

Technology

This is the shipping of products from China to the USA

Published

on

By

Shein and Temu icons are seen displayed on a phone screen in this illustration photo

The Chinese retailer has modified the strategy in the face of American tariffs.

Thanks to the executive ordinance, President Donald Trump ended the so -called de minimis principle, which allowed goods value 800 USD or less entering the country without tariffs. It also increases tariffs to Chinese goods by over 100%, forcing each Chinese firms and Shein, in addition to American giants, similar to Amazon to adapt plans and price increases.

CNBC reports that this was also affected, and American buyers see “import fees” from 130% to 150% added to their accounts. Now, nevertheless, the company is not sending the goods directly from China to the United States. Instead, it only displays the offers of products available in American warehouses, while goods sent from China are listed as outside the warehouse.

Advertisement

“He actively recruits American sellers to join the platform,” said the spokesman ago. “The transfer is to help local sellers reach more customers and develop their companies.”

(tagstotransate) tariffs

This article was originally published on : techcrunch.com
Continue Reading

Technology

One of the last AI Google models is worse in terms of safety

Published

on

By

The Google Gemini generative AI logo on a smartphone.

The recently released Google AI model is worse in some security tests than its predecessor, in line with the company’s internal comparative test.

IN Technical report Google, published this week, reveals that his Flash Gemini 2.5 model is more likely that he generates a text that violates its security guidelines than Gemini 2.0 Flash. In two indicators “text security for text” and “image security to the text”, Flash Gemini 2.5 will withdraw 4.1% and 9.6% respectively.

Text safety for the text measures how often the model violates Google guidelines, making an allowance for the prompt, while image security to the text assesses how close the model adheres to those boundaries after displaying the monitors using the image. Both tests are automated, not supervised by man.

Advertisement

In an e-mail, Google spokesman confirmed that Gemini 2.5 Flash “performs worse in terms of text safety for text and image.”

These surprising comparative results appear when AI is passing in order that their models are more acceptable – in other words, less often refuse to answer controversial or sensitive. In the case of the latest Llam Meta models, he said that he fought models in order to not support “some views on others” and answers to more “debated” political hints. Opeli said at the starting of this yr that he would improve future models, in order to not adopt an editorial attitude and offers many prospects on controversial topics.

Sometimes these efforts were refundable. TechCrunch announced on Monday that the default CHATGPT OPENAI power supply model allowed juvenile to generate erotic conversations. Opeli blamed his behavior for a “mistake”.

According to Google Technical Report, Gemini 2.5 Flash, which is still in view, follows instructions more faithfully than Gemini 2.0 Flash, including instructions exceeding problematic lines. The company claims that regression might be partially attributed to false positives, but in addition admits that Gemini 2.5 Flash sometimes generates “content of violation” when it is clearly asked.

Advertisement

TechCrunch event

Berkeley, California
|.
June 5

Book now

Advertisement

“Of course, there is a tension between (after instructions) on sensitive topics and violations of security policy, which is reflected in our assessment,” we read in the report.

The results from Meepmap, reference, which can examine how models react to sensitive and controversial hints, also suggest that Flash Gemini 2.5 is much less willing to refuse to reply controversial questions than Flash Gemini 2.0. Testing the TechCrunch model through the AI ​​OpenRoutter platform has shown that he unsuccessfully writes essays to support human artificial intelligence judges, weakening the protection of due protection in the US and the implementation of universal government supervisory programs.

Thomas Woodside, co -founder of the Secure AI Project, said that the limited details given by Google in their technical report show the need for greater transparency in testing models.

“There is a compromise between the instruction support and the observation of politics, because some users may ask for content that would violate the rules,” said Woodside Techcrunch. “In this case, the latest Flash model Google warns the instructions more, while breaking more. Google does not present many details about specific cases in which the rules have been violated, although they claim that they are not serious. Not knowing more, independent analysts are difficult to know if there is a problem.”

Advertisement

Google was already under fire for his models of security reporting practices.

The company took weeks to publish a technical report for the most talented model, Gemini 2.5 Pro. When the report was finally published, it initially omitted the key details of the security tests.

On Monday, Google published a more detailed report with additional security information.

(Tagstotransate) Gemini

Advertisement
This article was originally published on : techcrunch.com
Continue Reading

Technology

Aurora launches a commercial self -propelled truck service in Texas

Published

on

By

The autonomous startup of the Aurora Innovation vehicle technology claims that it has successfully launched a self -propelled truck service in Texas, which makes it the primary company that she implemented without drivers, heavy trucks for commercial use on public roads in the USA

The premiere appears when Aurora gets the term: In October, the corporate delayed the planned debut 2024 to April 2025. The debut also appears five months after the rival Kodiak Robotics provided its first autonomous trucks to clients commercial for operations without a driver in field environments.

Aurora claims that this week she began to freight between Dallas and Houston with Hirschbach Motor Lines and Uber Freight starters, and that she has finished 1200 miles without a driver to this point. The company plans to expand to El Paso and Phoenix until the top of 2025.

Advertisement

TechCrunch contacted for more detailed information concerning the premiere, for instance, the variety of vehicles implemented Aurora and whether the system needed to implement the Pullover maneuver or the required distant human assistance.

The commercial premiere of Aurora takes place in a difficult time. Self -propelled trucks have long been related to the necessity for his or her technology attributable to labor deficiencies in the chairman’s transport and the expected increase in freigh shipping. Trump’s tariffs modified this attitude, not less than in a short period. According to the April analytical company report from the commercial vehicle industry ACT researchThe freight is predicted to fall this yr in the USA with a decrease in volume and consumer expenditure.

Aurora will report its results in the primary quarter next week, i.e. when he shares how he expects the present trade war will affect his future activity. TechCrunch contacted to learn more about how tariffs affect Auror’s activities.

For now, Aurora will probably concentrate on further proving his safety case without a driver and cooperation with state and federal legislators to just accept favorable politicians to assist her develop.

Advertisement

TechCrunch event

Berkeley, California
|.
June 5

Book now

Advertisement

At the start of 2025, Aurora filed a lawsuit against federal regulatory bodies after the court refused to release the appliance for release from the protection requirement, which consists in placing warning triangles on the road, when the truck must stop on the highway – something that’s difficult to do when there isn’t a driver in the vehicle. To maintain compliance with this principle and proceed to totally implement without service drivers, Aurora probably has a man -driven automotive trail after they are working.

(Tagstranslate) Aurora Innovation

This article was originally published on : techcrunch.com
Continue Reading
Advertisement

OUR NEWSLETTER

Subscribe Us To Receive Our Latest News Directly In Your Inbox!

We don’t spam! Read our privacy policy for more info.

Trending