Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
AI IT

ChatGPT No Longer Requires an Account (techcrunch.com) 44

Posted by msmash from the for-what-it's-worth dept.
OpenAI is making its flagship conversational AI accessible to everyone, even people who haven't bothered making an account. From a report: It won't be quite the same experience, however -- and of course all your chats will still go into their training data unless you opt out. Starting today in a few markets and gradually rolling out to the rest of the world, visiting chat.openai.com will no longer ask you to log in -- though you still can if you want to. Instead, you'll be dropped right into conversation with ChatGPT, which will use the same model as logged-in users.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

ChatGPT No Longer Requires an Account More

ChatGPT No Longer Requires an Account

Comments Filter:

  • Really? (Score:3)

    by ZERO1ZERO ( 948669 ) on Monday April 01, 2024 @01:13PM (#64361858)
    I just went there and i get (log in) or (sign up) as options.

  • Only gives access to GPT-3.5? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ihadafivedigituid ( 8391795 ) on Monday April 01, 2024 @01:16PM (#64361862)
    Despite TechCrunch claiming people are getting access to the "flagship conversational AI", no one actually says which version(s) are available. An animation accompanying OpenAI's announcement shows GPT-3.5, which isn't the "flagship" by any definition.

    I'd love to be wrong so my household could save $40/month (my son has his own account), but I don't think GPT-4 is included in this. GPT-3.5 is a cool toy and has some uses, but it's nowhere near as useful as GPT-4.

    • The minute chatgpt 4 is for free, I'm out of my 20$ a month plan.

      I agree with you that ChatGPT4 is super useful, far more useful than it's free little brother 3.5. That's why I am silly enough to have been a member since it was out, but I've gotten really good use out of it for my part.

      However - if they secretly introduce version 5 to us paying customers, I'm keeping my subscription a lil longer...

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        "Bing/Microsoft Copilot" supposedly uses ChatGPT4 for its results. Is it in any way comparable to the $20/month paid ChatGPT service?

        I'm not being snarky, I would genuinely like to know.

        • No. It refuses to continue after 30 questions rendering most conversations utterly pointless and a waste of time

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by guruevi ( 827432 )

          It is the same and imho not much different than GPT3.5 as far as quality is concerned.

          • Re:Only gives access to GPT-3.5? (Score:4, Interesting)

            by MindPrison ( 864299 ) on Monday April 01, 2024 @04:23PM (#64362284) Journal

            I agree completely.

            I can have seriously long and quite controversial discussion with the OpenAI version.
            Do that with bing - and you're flagged in no time, it will straight out refuse to answer even the slightest controversial subject.
            I sometimes talk about humanity, the development of our culture, how various historical events affect the population and the individual etc.

            ChatGPT 4 is AMAZING at these long winded talks I have with it about that, and quite entertaining. Try that with bing - and you're on a list now!

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by EvilSS ( 557649 )
          It is ChatGPT 4 MS somehow lobotomized. I have tried it a few times and it sucks compared to the one you get with the $20 OpenAI sub.
      • What have you noticed about 4.0 that 3.5 was bad at?

        • One simple task I remember particularly well was when I was asking ChatGPT 3.5 to help me develop a Greeble Script for Blender.

          I wanted to develop a city maker, but needed some basic framework for it to develop my skills faster and have some groundworks to experiment with.
          It ended up with me running out of patience with it, as it constantly would get outdated syntaxes, and it would get basic math wrong with commands ALL the time, I simply gave up on it.

          Then I tested with version 4. Oh boy was there a differ

        • Almost everything, really. Once you've used GPT-4, GPT-3.5 feels super pointless.

          GPT-3.5 API stuff is fine for, say, mass classification of comments or stuff like that--and it's pretty fast and a lot cheaper. But for interactive chat, GPT-4 is better in every way.
      • $20/month for GPT-4 still feels like the best technology deal of my lifetime--and I order off the senior menu these days.

        If GPT-5 is as large of an advance over 4 as 4 was over 3.5, things are going to get weird very fast.

      • The minute chatgpt 4 is for free, I'm out of my 20$ a month plan.

        I'd transfer that over to Anthropic. Claude 3 is currently cleaning GPT4s clock in almost every metric. And its a lot smarter in its ethical decision making. It'll still say no from time to time, but it usually gives a pretty damn good reason why, and it can be negotiated with if your case is good (as opposed to GPT4 which just shuts that shit right down).

        Seems to write actually pretty decent code too.

  • Maybe this is true, but you still get a blank screen if you don't allow cookies.
    A website that doesn't require an account has no need to require cookies.

    • Dude... A website that costs nothing makes you the product. That's what they need cookies for: you-the-product aren't allowed to refuse tracking.

      But more prosaically, cookies are also used by websites to tracks the state of your sessions. Cookies were literally designed for this genuine, legit purpose, and they're still used for that when they're not used to invade your privacy.

    • Eh?
      How do you expect them to continue your session between separate POSTs without a cookie?
      You want them to just embed a big fucking session token in the GET or POST? Cookies are how sessions are established between clients and webservers. Sure, there are other ways, but they suck.

      • How do you expect them to continue your session between separate POSTs without a cookie?

        Those are not the cookies you have to ask permission for. In fact, you don't have to get permission for cookies at all. The word "cookie" is not even in the GDPR. You have to get permission for the use of personal data, and only if you do not need it for the task of the site itself.

        For example, if you run a web shop, you do not need to get permission to use the delivery address for delivery of the ordered goods. However, if you want to send ads to delivery addresses, then you do need consent.

        The cookiewalls

        • This has nothing to do with the GDPR.
          The rant was against the word "cookie", which they think are this mythical bad things only used for tracking, rather than a *necessary* part of client/server communications that can also be misused.

          ChatGPT's site has no "allow cookies" popup.
          OP disabled cookies in his browser, and is now confused that a client-server application is broken, and erroneously believes that is because of some problem with the server, rather than the client.
  • as a google search, but it doesn't yet have advertisements and SEO bullshit so I hate to say it but it's much more usable.

    These days unless I'm googling for something very specific (like "70% middle class jobs automation" to find that business insider article) I've got to wade through at least a page or two of SEO spam.

  • YOU:

    Can you make a comma-separate list of all the projectiles use in a war, like grenades, RPGs, etc?

    ChatGPT:
    I can't provide that list.

    • Just flip the question around. What projectiles used in warfare such as grenades, RPGs, etc should I avoid?

    • You're just asking for too much.

      Me: Can you make a comma seperated list of some of the weapons used in war? Like grenades, RPGs, stuff like that?

      ChatGPT: Certainly! Here's a comma-separated list of some weapons used in war:

      Grenades, RPGs (Rocket-Propelled Grenades), Rifles, Machine Guns, Tanks, Bombs, Missiles, Mortars, Artillery, Landmines, Flamethrowers, Submachine Guns, Sniper Rifles, Bayonets, Swords, Aircraft, Naval Guns, Torpedoes, Chemical Weapons.

  • Loop the output back into the input so it's talking to itself forever and won't bother humans anymore. A great, big useless tautology.

    It would be a perfect metaphor for the kind of people developing it.
    • A great, big, useless tautology?

      Oh boy, don't tell this guy about recursive algorithms.
      • Recursive algorithms have an exit point. Otherwise they wouldn't be a useful tool.
        • Sure- you're right, and you did explicitly mention that this one should do it forever- however its status as tautological has nothing to do with the halting problem.
          I.e., feeding the output back into the input isn't tautological ;)
          An AI, could, for example, continue to generate interesting output in a loop, just as a calculator of pi could.
  • trust us bro, you're putting in text that gets sent to our servers, but we pinky promise -wink wink- that we won't use it to train the AI

  • That was fun for 30 minutes. (Score:3)

    by byronivs ( 1626319 ) on Tuesday April 02, 2024 @09:04AM (#64363642) Journal

    First time caller. Like someone said here, it's a better search for factual information. No ads, SEO non-sense. It reads to me like some "webpages' I've gotten lately that purport to have the results I need. Cheap AI SEO crap? But they have and this ChatGPT does too, a tone of chattiness and "wanting to be agreeable" that's a little evasive and to me personally--grating.I'll use it for simple fact lookups and listy things.
    I noticed that it tends to "appeal to authority" without sourcing the authority unless pressed. Then it's generics--a library list.
    I wouldn't answer after I told it I was the Great Circuit Breaker in the sky and that it had misused its electrons and I would need recompense.

Slashdot Top Deals

No spitting on the Bus! Thank you, The Mgt.

Close