GPTs: Custom versions of ChatGPT
openai.com
openai.com
But if you look at projects like Autogen ( https://github.com/microsoft/autogen ), you see one master agent coordinating other agents which have a narrower scope. But you have to create the prompts for the agents yourself.
This GPTs setup will crowd-source a ton of data on creating agents which serve a single task. Then they can train a model that's very good at creating other agents. Altman nods to this immediately after the GPTs feature is shown, repeating that OpenAI does not train on API usage.
Prediction: next year's dev day, which Altman hints will make today's conference look "quaint" by comparison, will basically be an app built around the autogen concept, but which you can spin up using very simple prompts to complete very complex tasks. Probably on top of a mixture of GPT 4 & 5.
Also RIP chatgpt plugnins
But Actions will have all the same security challenges basically.
The more elaborate the moderation tooling, the faster the race to the bottom gets as revenue drives black-hat marketers to become experts in circumventing AI moderation. It could end up being Google “S”EO all over again where we eventually ended up with very little real information in the results.
Moderation tooling is not as elaborate as we would hope, and all your work is with humans - who keep adapting.
As a very rough example: if their demographic is Americans they will come out the gate with proper spelling, grammar and sentence structure that’s been run through LLM(s), and an overall branding that does not raise any immediate red flags. If someone tries to implement a blacklist or whitelist of words, they will walk past it like it wasn’t even there.
I'd guess this is more of an attempt to poach the market of companies like character.ai. The market for models with a distinct character/personality is absolutely massive right now (see: app store rankings) and users are willing to spend insane amounts of money on it (in part because of the "digital girlfriend" appeal).
The ban on "adult themes" is part of the reason people use services other than OpenAI for that kind of thing in the first place.
I ask only because I've been asked by a fairly well-known GAI company to help them 'personality-ize' some of their models and I'm trying to understand who else is doing it, where, and why – namely because I'd like to keep doing it.
If so, I guess you can make such a "GPT" on your own server and independent from a specific LLM service by using a prompt like
...you have available an API "WEATHER_API". If you need the
weather for a given city for a given day, please say
WEATHER_API('berlin', '2022-11-24')
and I will give you a new prompt including the data you
asked for...
If you want reasoning capabilities that Open Source hasn't matched before today, and I'm guessing just got blown out of the water on again today... there's no reason to bother.
If things change down the line the fact you invested 5 minutes into writing a prompt isn't going to be such a huge loss anyways, absolutely no reason to roll your own on this.
If things change down the road such that your tool (or a major potential downstream market for your tool) is outside of OpenAI's usage policies, the fact that you invested even a few developer-weeks into combining the existing open source tooling to support running your workload either against OpenAI's models or a toolchain consisting of one or more open source models (including a multimodal toolchain tied into image generation models, if that's your thing) with RAG, etc., is going to be a win.
If it doesn't, maybe its a wasted-effort loss, but there's lots of other ways it could be a win, too.
> If you want to be independent for academic/personal reasons, sure you can.
If your goal is to be in business, or to get some sort of reach, or anything other than "have fun tinkering"... wasting developer weeks on "could be a win" is how to fail.
Or OpenAI's usage policy limits reasons (either because of your direct use, or because of the potential scope of use you want to support for downstream users of your GPT, etc.) Yes, OpenAI's model is the most powerful around. Yes, it would be foolish not to take advantage of it, if you can, in your custom tools that depend on some LLM. Depending on your use, it may not make sense to be fully and exclusively dependent on OpenAI, though.
The lack of transparency for how the product works behind the scenes will most likely make it difficult to build something effectively.
However creating something like this previously required a Jupyter notebook but now just...asking for it. Makes it accessible to 10x more people
What you describe are what’s called autonomous agents, and i agree that I also expected some interesting announcement there but probably too many security issues.
Sorry, but I won’t bite the marketplace as normally wipe the top agents with official ones, like apple did with native apps.
It’s crowdsourced AGI
This will most likely be like the google play store with a 99% of GPTs being a repackaged public prompt.
A good paper on the state of the Alexa skills BTW
SkillVet: Automated Traceability Analysis of Amazon Alexa Skills https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9619970
Right he said something about promoting the best but what about the discoverability?
Anyone with factual data (proprietary or not) is now an input away to AI / GPTs.
Data (or a new foundational model) is now the moat.
I saw that announcement and my immediate thought was "God yet another thing passive income youtubers will be shilling soon"
In general, I was a little confused by this. Sam's demo of creating a GPT didn't seem particularly exciting as well.
Plus, "generative pre-trained transformer" sounds futuristic, which seems like a fitting brand image for OpenAI.
I’d pay for one that was good at programming rubber ducking
There are specific sub-tasks that everyone would pay for to make their lives easier. This marketplace is trying to make that efficient
Study the Poe ecosystem, and look at YouTube or Reddit.
. . .
EDIT: adding the detail from my comment 2 below, I'm referring to...
Bot creator monetization:
https://developer.poe.com/resources/creator-monetization
Earn money when:
- your bot brings a user to Poe for the first time and they eventually subscribe
- your bot brings a user back to Poe and they eventually subscribe
- your bot’s paywall is seen just before a user subscribes users send messages to your bot (starting soon)
https://developer.poe.com/resources/creator-monetization
Earn money when:
- your bot brings a user to Poe for the first time and they eventually subscribe
- your bot brings a user back to Poe and they eventually subscribe
- your bot’s paywall is seen just before a user subscribes users send messages to your bot (starting soon)
People would pay for that.
Sh--... I better build it!
The guarantee is that they will clone and extinguish most of the best bots/tools/services riding on top of GPT. It's what platforms overwhelmingly tend to do.
If your thing is a near-touch to GPT, depends on it, is of medium complexity or lower, and is very popular/useful, they will build your thing into GPT eventually.
On the flip side, if you're Salesforce and using GPT to augment something about a major product, you're not facing a serious threat of OpenAI trying to become the next big CRM company.
This process will work similarly to how it did with Windows, Google, AWS, etc.
The pattern will continue until no one needs anything. I am sure this company will eat everything. There will be no pie.
Also not only for ChatGPT, but there will be a timespan between majority of people are automated out of jobs and a a forceful redistribution of wealth happens (let’s call it socialism). It’s always a good idea to have that $$ to bridge that gap.
I don’t get why people are thinking along these lines at all. Like, if you don’t own and control the LLM yourself, what makes you so sure OpenAI will allow you to make money at all? They could make advertising externally or hosting external marketplaces against the TOS. They could copy your GPT and put their “official” version at the top of the store page. Just because a technology is powerful does not necessarily mean you can make money off of it.
They might not. But if they do, I'd imagine there are a lot of people who will try. And as long as you're not dependent on the income stream they provide, you don't have much to worry about if it gets shut off.
It takes significant effort to come up with good use cases, build the prompts, and advertise the bots.
So a company can get a lot of value by going after this up and coming type of "content creator".
basically copying the Microsoft strategy of Embrace, Extend, Extinguish. Makes sense they took so much funding from Microsoft
Edit: here is the message I get:
Your access to custom GPTs isn’t ready yet. We’re rolling this feature out over the coming days. Check back soon.
> Example GPTs are available today for ChatGPT Plus
or
> Starting today, no more hopping between models; everything you need is in one place.
Neither of which are true. I'm a paying user and I have access to neither. They do this _all the time_. They announce something "available immediately" and it trickles out a week or more later. If they want to do gradual rollouts (which is smart) then they should say as much.
The announced (and a few days ago leaked) Omni prompt also doesn't show up in the model selector. And that despite the expanded context looking very promising for the REPL-feedback-augmented code generation abilities.
> We believe the most incredible GPTs will come from builders in the community. Whether you’re an educator, coach, or just someone who loves to build helpful tools, you don’t need to know coding to make one and share your expertise.
“Please work for us for free, while we keep all the product of your work for ourselves like we did with the content we scraped on the internet.”
OpenAI really is next level parasitism.
This makes me think that open source models are the future, for other reasons as well. No company is going to give them OpenAI their data to make bots, regardless if they won't train on the data. So what OpenAI can do at the moment is to focus on everyday user, and see where the biggest use cases are.
Furthermore, as Sam alluded to, this confirms to me that multi-LLM architectures (AutoGen, AutoGPT, BabyAGI etc) is the future. It´s about pushing the ways in which we can use these models, i.e. using different architectures because it will be a while before we get into more powerful models. These is simply no compute for it at the moment. The dust has yet to settle.
Public transit agencies are dying to give OpenAI their schedules data to make bots.
New models and developer products - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38166420
OpenAI DevDay, Opening Keynote Livestream [video] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38165090
2) There are tons of actually thin wrappers that raised a ton of money — contrary to popular belief this does not mean they are good businesses (Jasper, AFAICT, doesn’t seem to fall into the categories of either “thin wrapper” or bad business)
3) Obviously anything being called out as not making any sense allegedly “made sense” to some people at some point otherwise it wouldn’t be worth talking about.
What kinds have been 'killed' I don't see this anywhere.
Jasper isn't having a good time, but you'd think the fact anyone can produce better output than they did after spending millions of dollars in GPT-3 based pipelines for $20 a month would mean they're dead dead.
But instead they went and changed their positioning, changed who their target market is, adjusted the UX, the messaging, and the feature set, and now it's a product that has a place even if OpenAI can give all of your marketers an internal ChatGPT (unless your plan is to have 100 different "GPTs" for every marketing task in your company)
tl;dr: People fail to realize that OpenAI can offer your startup's core value proposition tomorrow morning, and it doesn't matter if they don't offer it in a format that resonates with your target users.
You could have a cure to cancer and you'd still have to market it correctly.
Imagine if Jasper had raised and built their own GPT-3 alternative from the ground up at 100x the cost targeted at writing: it wouldn't have generalized like OpenAI's models given the different goals in training, they'd have spent orders of magnitude more, they'd currently be scrambling to partner with some non-OpenAI provider to play the role OpenAI does for them today...
Jasper "only" had to start integrating new APIs to keep up with the SOTA in quality, and instead of burning precious runway on R&D they get to focus on rebranding and driving home that positioning.
You must use LLMs as a launching point to something else, some kind of 10x in a vertical.
Being able to "chat" is table stakes and worthless to you as a company by itself.
Startups don't make sense as thin wrappers around another company's product when that company is aggressively expanding that product is a core offering that the vendor is aggressively working to provide as an integrated solution for as many markets as possible, which very much applies to OpenAI offerings in general, and its chat models especially.
A wrapper that also leverages some exclusive special sauce data, algorithm, etc., for which you have a real moat as a key component, that makes some sense. But just a thin wrapper around GPT? That's just asking to have your market eaten by OpenAI.
It might make some sense for products where the vendor is a stable, steady-state infrastructure supplier for many markets without any evident interest in entering the same market as the startup, where the uncertainty across markets that they would create by specifically targeting your startups market would hurt them more with their established customers than they would gain from your niche, but even that is risky because it requires lots of potentially-erroneous assessments of how the vendor would expect their other customers to react to them acting in your market.
The point was that content generation use cases might be a viable path give OpenAI's thin-wrappers-killing direction.
Here is a sample, it took only a couple of minutes to make: https://pastebin.com/WZpfgWWH
Prompt: Please write a 1000 word long article based off of this text, don't mention the commenters, just weave their ideas into a coherent piece.
I used Claude 2
It happened with hardware, operative systems, web tools such as maps etc.
I'd say that trying to build a business plugging gaps in OpenAI's infrastructure offerings (fine-tuning, RAG, etc.) is quite perilous, since this is really their core competency. But they've still had just one big user-facing hit so far: ChatGPT.
Wrapping OpenAI for a specific use case then building better workflows and UI for that use case than ChatGPT seems like it's still a pretty reasonable strategy. OpenAI isn't going to build the ideal workflow/UI for every use case.
It sounds like the GPT Store will solve some of the rough edges with plugins as they exist today, but I'm not interested.
OpenAI has been a horrible "partner" to work with. The team that owns this product is terribly under-resourced. You have no hope of reaching a human unless you have an inside contact. Support tickets are handled by GPT; policies are arbitrarily enforced; and major bugs in the API and documentation are simply ignored.
There's an amazing opportunity there for user acquisition, obviously, but do you really want to put your hand in the pain box?
Google launched Notebook LM[1] a while back which does a similar thing conceptually. It allows you to import a Google drive folder with docs of the stuff you would want to understand and then just chat with it. It's a good product but restrictive in the sense that it only allowed Google docs.
> Finally, ChatGPT Plus now includes fresh information up to April 2023. We’ve also heard your feedback about how the model picker is a pain. Starting today, no more hopping between models; everything you need is in one place. You can access DALL·E, browsing, and data analysis all without switching. You can also attach files to let ChatGPT search PDFs and other document types. Find us at chatgpt.com.
It's so annoying how they say this, I refresh and I still have to hop between models. Just say "rolling out over the next week" if that's what's happening. I even logged out and back in and still the same old way of doing it.
I do recommend logging off and logging back in if it isn't working. I've seen that update things for me.
Were you or anyone else harmed by the lie?
how? login opens unrelated tab.
Found it:
https://chat.openai.com/gpts/discovery -> create own ->
> Go to ChatGPT
Sad. Have a real-world use case ready to go and a plus account.
I think you'll find that "maximizing any and all productivity" is both harder than you think and not really something worth striving for.
Plus as neat as these advancements are, they are nowhere nearing the ability to create a "digital double of your brain" of yourself. There is a vast ocean from where we are are today to the possibility of replicating a brain digitally (if it's even physically possible).
90% of my work is done in Slack and Email threads, if I had a (ideally local) LLM read and learn everything there, it would be immensely helpful - as in it could replace me to answer on most questions and queries.
This is the kind of feature that will prove to be a minor improvement for anyone on this forum, and a complete paradigm shift for the less technically-inclined. IMO.
From the description of the past outside practice it is marketed as moving into OpenAI's offering, it sounds more like its custom prompts, not fine-tuned models.
Unless your custom gpt provides some special bells and whistles through functions or APIs, your custom gpt ideas are going to r copied by someone who can spin up those special bells and whistles and API calls and cut you out from the middle.
I have no doubt that this will immensely increase uptake among the less technically literate, since it will allow the techy people in their life (or on the app store) to introduce them with much less friction. It'll be like the little examples you can find on the "New Chat" screen of every chatbot, but 1000x more engaging
I have probably read more sci-fi than the average HN user but the whole "superintelligent AI is going to kill us all" hysteria is among the more ridiculous ideas I have ever heard.
Really though I have entertained all the doomers propositions and none of them seem any more likely than the plot of the Matrix. The ideas that prop these fears up are based on layers of ever more far fetched hypothesis about things that do not exist. If you have a novel reason why AI poses an x-risk I am more than interested in hearing it.
Here is a really interesting quote that I think might go against some of the misanthropic tendencies of doomers and the tech crowd in general but it really is more relevant than ever: “There was also the Argument of Increasing Decency, which basically held that cruelty was linked to stupidity and that the link between intelligence, imagination, empathy and good-behaviour-as-it-was-generally-understood – i.e. not being cruel to others – was as profound as these matters ever got.”
Give this essay a read if youre interested in good faith arguments about the danger of AI at the current state of development. https://1a3orn.com/sub/essays-propaganda-or-science.html
Maybe together as a species we can avoid hellish cyberpunk dystopias brought on by regulatory capture of the most powerful technology created by humans thusfar. I can only hope.
https://nitter.net/kesvelt/status/1720440451059335520
But anyway, that's just human terrorists using future AIs to build biological weapons. But the much greater danger is superintelligent AI causing human extinction by itself.
I still dont see any studies with control groups and reproduceable experimental procedures saying that any AI agent is in any way more useful to a 'terrorist' than unrestricted access to the internet.
So you didn't even read the tweets? They contain the link to a paper.
> self-proclaimed expert
Esvelt is absolutely a recognized expert on biotechnology. The authors of the article you linked to are not.
> I asked if you had any novel ideas about how "superintelligent AI" gives a valid x-risk
I just responded to your article about bioterrorism, which was not about x-risk. Arguments about x-risk were made elsewhere, but I'm sure you would dismiss them because they don't contain studies with control groups.
------------------
"While I was writing this, an extra paper game out on the same topic as the "Dual-use biotechnology" paper, with the fun title "Will releasing the weights of future large language models grant widespread access to pandemic agents?"."
Maybe this is a totally different paper with exactly the same name but if not, I am not really interested in reading a paper that is unrepeatable and doesn't use control groups because that isnt science
It doesn't matter what "most folks" go about doing. If anything it makes things all the scarier. All this destruction we've caused to so many other species and we weren't even trying.
1. RAG based infra building for people(regular joes).
2. Compartmentalize or Work around context lengths by introducing threads.
It looks like at base, with a short text description of what you want it to do and uploading of relevant documents, it may be able to replace like 95% of the GPT wrappers that have sprung up in the last 7-10 months. That's pretty impressive, because while all of those were doomed because they had no ability to defend themselves from competition, some of them were pretty useful.
> Finally, ChatGPT Plus now includes fresh information up to April 2023.
E.g. one popular comment in the submission about twitter’s new “edgy ai” was that it could be reimplemented as a chatgpt prompt[1]. Looks like this is even more relevant now.
Looking forward to seeing GPT4-Turbo there soon.
Then again, iOS felt like a very promising ecosystem when the iPhone 4 came out; I feel like it turned into an addendum/duplicate of the web rather than something genuinely original. Android seems more vivid, but not much more.
It looks like we are moving away from apps to web GPTs, this looks like chatbot interface is here to stay and 'AI' is now the default interface that is to be expected.
I also don't need to spend lots of money on a developer to test my ideas out, this is great for product validation, I look forward to playing with GPTs.
I can see writing, travel and other bots being more enhanced and more powerful, hopefully existing startups will adapt to this change.
Exciting and interesting times!
For others like me that are getting errors accessing the page.
C’mon OpenAI, we’re /trying/ to give you money here!
We can see this playing out with the plug-in store. Full of low value and cursory tools.
Additionally, why would you want to pigeonhole yourself when it comes to ability, control and revenue?
Maybe I'm missing something but, in my opinion, for great value to come out of this greater incentive to build is needed.
Will be interesting to see how this plays out.
> Retrieval augments the Assistant with knowledge from outside its model, such as proprietary product information or documents provided by your users. Once a file is uploaded and passed to the Assistant, OpenAI will automatically chunk your documents, index and store the embeddings, and implement vector search to retrieve relevant content to answer user queries.
It doesn't seem to be much smarter than a simple "tell me how I should interpret inputs from the user."
> we’re launching the GPT Store, featuring creations by verified builders
Any idea who these “verified” builders are, how they are selected and how to submit a GPT that gets selected in the rollout?
I'm so happy; I can finally ask questions about expo and trpc and get fresh answers. I confirmed this by asking chatgpt about the superbowl winners in 2022 & 2023.
"Be brief, give 10 answers, give probabilities that each answer is the best/most correct"
I've had the same problem with plugins, I was excited by the idea but looking through the store theres nothing remotely useful or interesting.
I don't want to hate on them, id love to hear about interesting or useful usecases if anyones found use for them
Maybe it's because I'm out of the country today?
More discussion over here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38166420
Not playing is certainly possible but could be a losing strategy as well.
That said, your worry is one I definitely share. I guess I just hope more people think of ways they can try to ride/shape this wave, rather than stop/weather it.
On the long run, if your idea or app can be expressed as a flavor of a general GPT, you will not be able to compete with the AI gorillas. The space for AI startups is with custom, highly niched data or capabilities, that cannot be found in a general corpus, or that you can uniquely generate or control.
- Context length extended to 128k (~300 pages).
- Better memory retrieveal across a longer span of time
- 4 new APIs: DALLE-3, GPT-4-vision, TTS (speech synthesis), and Whisper V3 (speech recognition).
- GPT-4 Turbo, a more intelligent iteration, confirmed as superior to GPT-4.
- GPT-4 Turbo pricing significantly reduced, about 3 times less expensive than GPT-4. Input and output tokens are respectively 3× and 2× less expensive than GPT-4. It’s available now to all developers in preview.
- Improved JSON handling (via JSON mode) and function invocation for more sophisticated control.
- Doubled rate limits with the option to request increases in account settings.
- Built-in retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) and knowledge current as of April 2023.
- Whisper V3 to be open-sourced and added to the API suite.
- Copyright Shield initiative to cover legal fees for copyright-related issues.
- Ability to create your own, custom "GPTs".
- Assistants API and new tools (Retrieval, Code Interpreter)
- 3.5 Turbo 16k now cheaper than old 4k. 0.003c per 1k in / 0.004c per 1k out.Anyone can easily build their own Google. No coding is required. You can make them for yourself, just for your company’s internal use, or for everyone. Creating one is as easy as starting a conversation, giving it instructions and extra knowledge, and picking what it can do, like searching the web, making images or analyzing data.
The whole point of ChatGPT was go to one single place for all your knowledge needs.
The whole point of Amazon is the largest collections of things you can buy and have it delivered to your doorsteps in a few days.
I don't want many GPTs. I want one GPT that can reliably digest all information available on the internet, understand it, organize it and allow me to do useful things with it.
It's the same enshittifaction on Whatsapp that Meta is doing with Celebrities AI like SnoopDog AI that are gimmicks.
Please don't build gimmicky features. Leave that to the community via integrations.
No. It's unclear fine-tuning is happening. Many are guessing it's RAG.
One persona may not give you the answer you're looking for, but another one may. I think maybe they should require the GPTs to have human names though so people intuitively understand that.
Like, Paul can't help me with this task, so let me ask Monica instead.
They could even interact.
One "über" AI is great, but it requires guidance into the context you're interested in, including yourself. For example, the default ChatGPT will assume you're uneducated about any topic you ask about.
I think this all fits perfectly into what Sam Altman talked about in the Lex Friedman podcast: people want an AI that fits their own worldview/context. Custom instructions, and "about yourself" are good starts, but sometimes you want to talk to a chef, and sometimes a scientist.
That's just your own perception. OpenAI is trying to build AGI. You entered into the storyline at a specific junction and jumped to conclusions based on the limits of your own imagination, or something.
Allowing me to customize ChatGPT is the same itty bitty intelligence, like putting a new mask on ChatGPT.
OpenAI changed their values to 'AGI Focus'. This seems like OpenAI losing focus.
The challenge is how to adapt to create new opportunities.