Speaker 1: Zone Media. Hello you, it's your better offline monologue and
Speaker 1: I'm your host ed ZiT trum. Now next week I'm
Speaker 1: going to have a two part of that digs into
Speaker 1: Microsoft Stata senter pull back an open ai is shaking
Speaker 1: you funding situation. But this week's monologue focuses an open
Speaker 1: AI's new model, GPT four point five. You may be
Speaker 1: wondering what it does differently to GPT four oh, or
Speaker 1: claudes on at three point seven, or any number of
Speaker 1: other large language models, And if I'm honest, I have
Speaker 1: absolutely no idea. Thankfully neither does Sam Ortman, CEO of
Speaker 1: open Ai, who said, and I quote, the GPT four
Speaker 1: point five was the first model that feels like talking
Speaker 1: to a thoughtful person to him, which makes me wonder
Speaker 1: what the other models have been like. So I went
Speaker 1: back and look. So compare this to the launch of
Speaker 1: GPT four oh, which Altman called open AI's best model ever,
Speaker 1: saying that it was fast, smart, natively multimodal, referring to
Speaker 1: the ability to accept text as well as audio and
Speaker 1: video and photos as well, and available to all chat
Speaker 1: GPT users, including on their free plan, adding that it
Speaker 1: was a very good model, especially at Coding. By contrast,
Speaker 1: Alltman summarized GPT four point five as a giant, expensive model,
Speaker 1: one that required hundreds of thousands of GPUs to launch
Speaker 1: beyond chat GPT pro. It started there. It's still not
Speaker 1: as I record this out to plus users or free users. Now.
Speaker 1: GPT pro of course is open AI is two hundred
Speaker 1: dollars a month subscription, and it's unclear when plus, which
Speaker 1: is the twenty buck a month one will get it,
Speaker 1: but apparently it's in the next few days. Aortman also
Speaker 1: added that GPT four point five isn't a reasoning model
Speaker 1: and won't crush benchmarks on account of it being a
Speaker 1: different kind of intelligence that has and all of these
Speaker 1: are quotes magic to it that Sam Mortman had not
Speaker 1: felt before. Yeah, just you know, shit's not doing well
Speaker 1: when you have to just be like it's magic, It's
Speaker 1: it's literally magic. I made magic. Now what does the
Speaker 1: magic do? I'm really not sure. In fact, it's pretty
Speaker 1: difficult to find exactly what it is that GPT four
Speaker 1: point five does differently, or what it's good at, or
Speaker 1: indeed really anything about him. BENJ. Edwards over At asked
Speaker 1: Tenneker had one developer called it a lemon. GPT four
Speaker 1: point five costs an incredible seventy five dollars per million
Speaker 1: input tokens prompts and data pushed into a model, and
Speaker 1: one hundred and fifty dollars per million output tokens is
Speaker 1: in the thing it creates. A token is like zero
Speaker 1: point seven. I think one token is maybe three words.
Speaker 1: Someone will get up my ass for this. Nevertheless, this
Speaker 1: seems like a lot. It isn't when you're running a company.
Speaker 1: And by the way, this is roughly three thousand percent
Speaker 1: more expensive for input tokens and fifteen hundred percent more
Speaker 1: expensive for output tokens than GPT four to zero for
Speaker 1: results that open ai co founder Andredge Carpathy described as
Speaker 1: a little bit better and awesome, but also not exactly
Speaker 1: in ways that are trivial to point to. That translates
Speaker 1: to it's a little bit better, but I can't really
Speaker 1: tell you why. And yes, you're gonna hear me say
Speaker 1: something similar in next week's episode, because the larger picture
Speaker 1: for open ai right now is pretty fucking dire considering
Speaker 1: their main backer, soft Bank, has to borrow billions of
Speaker 1: dollars to fund them. Nevertheless, back to four point five
Speaker 1: Since launch, which was for some reason, on the day
Speaker 1: that Sam Ortman's child was being born in the hospital,
Speaker 1: He's been posting some really weird shits since, though. A
Speaker 1: few days after launch, Aortman claimed that GPT four point
Speaker 1: five was the first time people had been emailing with
Speaker 1: such passion, asking the open AI promised never to stop
Speaker 1: offering a specific model or even replace it with an update,
Speaker 1: at which point I assume everybody in the room started
Speaker 1: clapping and they saluted Sam Mortman and said, thank you,
Speaker 1: sir for making this happen. And by the way, what
Speaker 1: I'm suggesting is that no one's ever done this, or
Speaker 1: like one freak did, or maybe Aortman emailed it to himself,
Speaker 1: who just shut up? Just your company burns five billion
Speaker 1: dollars a year and the best you've got is this
Speaker 1: warmed up dog shit about people marine todding you over
Speaker 1: your model and never taking it away. Has opening I
Speaker 1: ever even taken away a model? Jesus fucking these companies anyway.
Speaker 1: A few days later, Altman posted a conversation where he
Speaker 1: asked GPT four point five if it believed it was real,
Speaker 1: leading to a series of bullet points with things like
Speaker 1: what do we mean by real only for GPT four
Speaker 1: point five, saying that it believed that it was not
Speaker 1: an independent consciousness, but rather a structured experience happening within
Speaker 1: your consciousness, referring to Sam Altman, which is the kind
Speaker 1: of shit that's only impressive if you're an imbecile or
Speaker 1: so stoned you've texted date of your friends the question
Speaker 1: what if the joker was Batman? And by the way,
Speaker 1: the answer to that is called The Batman Who Laughs
Speaker 1: and it's one of the worst comics ever written. If
Speaker 1: you want to talk to me about DC Metal, please
Speaker 1: email me. It's easy. That's e z or z. If
Speaker 1: you're Canadian or British at Better Offline dot com I
Speaker 1: a really if you are working for DC Comics right
Speaker 1: now and you had anything to do with Death Metal
Speaker 1: or The Batman Who Laughs, you and I have a grievance.
Speaker 1: You and I need to talk. Sorry what this is
Speaker 1: a tech pop us right back to open AI. More worryingly,
Speaker 1: Samultman posted an idea for paid plans where your twenty
Speaker 1: dollars plus subscription converts the credits you can use across
Speaker 1: speech just like Deep Research O one. GPT four point five, Sora,
Speaker 1: and so on, with no fixed limits per feature, and
Speaker 1: you choose what you want. If you run out of credits,
Speaker 1: you can buy more. This, to be clear, is an
Speaker 1: attempt to raise prices without actually raising them by attempting
Speaker 1: to limit usage of open AI's more expensive models. Chat,
Speaker 1: GPT plus and other subscriptions give you a limit, for example,
Speaker 1: a limit of eighty messages every three hours on GPT
Speaker 1: four to oh, but using one doesn't limit your use
Speaker 1: of other products. Here, open ai is trying to create
Speaker 1: a rent seeking model where power users have to pay
Speaker 1: for more credits if they want to use, say open
Speaker 1: ai is more expensive models like Sora and O one,
Speaker 1: and I imagine any situation like this will be one
Speaker 1: where they hope that people simply won't use their credits
Speaker 1: or overuse them and have to pay for top ups.
Speaker 1: This is, of course all theoretical, but it heavily suggests
Speaker 1: that open ai is getting desperate. And now the information
Speaker 1: is reporting that open ai executives have told some investors
Speaker 1: that they will be charging two thousand dollars per month
Speaker 1: for their low end agent product. And yes that's a
Speaker 1: quote sold to And again I quote high income knowledge
Speaker 1: workers with supposed mid tier agents for software development costing
Speaker 1: possibly ten thousand dollars a month, with supposed PhD level
Speaker 1: research agents costing twenty thousand dollars a month, and I
Speaker 1: will tell you the PhDs I know would probably do
Speaker 1: it for half, and they'd even work for an annoying
Speaker 1: asshole like Sam Altman. Now you may wonder what any
Speaker 1: of these things do, and the answer is that neither
Speaker 1: I nor the Information know. As of right now. The
Speaker 1: only operational or agent, open ai has his operator, open
Speaker 1: AI's agent that sometimes successfully uses a web browser search
Speaker 1: for something in minutes, which would usually take you seconds.
Speaker 1: The Information attempted to suggest that the two thousand a
Speaker 1: month agent would be some sort of thing that could
Speaker 1: sort through and rank sales lead But I'm sorry, do
Speaker 1: I really have to read this shit with a straight face?
Speaker 1: Twenty thousand dollars for a PhD level agent? What the
Speaker 1: fuck does that mean? What would it do? Why do
Speaker 1: these companies? I get emails every week having to justify
Speaker 1: my fucking cynicism, But these shittheads, they're allowed to just
Speaker 1: make up stuff and it leak it to the information
Speaker 1: The Information publishes. It were all meant to be impressed.
Speaker 1: What the fucking what the fuck I'm allowed to rent
Speaker 1: on these? They're allowing me to rant on these. It's
Speaker 1: just it sickens me. I have had this week at
Speaker 1: least five people email me and be like, well ed,
Speaker 1: what would it take to change your mind about this stuff?
Speaker 1: Why do I have to fucking do it? Why do
Speaker 1: I The multi billion dollar companies do a dogshit job
Speaker 1: of actually explaining this stuff or selling it. They lose
Speaker 1: billions of dollars. But I'm the guy who has to
Speaker 1: justify myself. Oh well, I'll keep doing it. Nevertheless, NES's
Speaker 1: old At the bottom of this article's a far more
Speaker 1: obvious payale horse. Open ai is planning to charge twenty
Speaker 1: percent to thirty percent of pro customers the two hundred
Speaker 1: dollars a month subscription that loses the money every time,
Speaker 1: a higher price because of how many research queries they're
Speaker 1: doing with Altmann, according to the information, suggesting some sort
Speaker 1: of hey guessoir a la carte or pay as you
Speaker 1: go approach. I want to be clear about something. This
Speaker 1: is not a company that's cooking. This is not a
Speaker 1: company that's worked out anything. Open Aiye is unprofitable, unsustainable,
Speaker 1: and deeply, deeply lost. These are the actions of a
Speaker 1: desperate company run by a desperate man. You have only
Speaker 1: Sam Morman had a thoughtful friend to talk about all
Speaker 1: these problems too,