I suspect the $500 will sell well. Maybe not for the staff developer, but I can definitely see the exec who thinks he can replace all his developers by vibe coding things himself inbetween meetings seeing a 6x speed up button and buying without a second thought.

There also doesn't seem to be a lot of differentiation between the tiers. They claim (or previously claimed) that the $200 plan was 20x usage, but now they say $500 is 25x usage.

They've since taken down the 20x usage mention on their pricing page. https://archive.is/bCZav

$6k/year/seat is not particularly expensive for a dev tool if (very big if) you can measure the value and demonstrate it's worthwhile. That's the missing piece. People look at cheaper options because they don't know if the expensive one is working.

If OpenAI can show that a $6k tool nets $50k in productivity or quality or speed they have no problem selling it. Companies will take the easy-but-expensive option over a cheaper alternative. The problem is that's really hard to measure and seemingly they've put no effort into trying.

Aren’t these crowds mostly people that work at the company? So you’re really cheering for the thing you built?

(I remember that being the explanation of why people would cheer at very lame things at Apple events.)

> The crowd lost their minds before Sam even told them what Dots were.

Maybe they were cheering on The Muppets inspired AI avatars, resembling Kermit, Scooter etc.

https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/1002033/...

    > But with no benchmarks or price comparison, which likely means it doesn't compare that well.

Doubt that's the case; this was only the announcement and the API isn't even released yet. As I noted, my own testing using a batching strategy (nothing more than "read 20 lines from this file instead of reading 1 at a time") yielded ~the same accuracy on an 800 row dataset we have with ~1.6x the throughput (at only batch_size=20) and 1.2x the cost. Didn't tune to find accuracy dropoff by batch size, but it's easy to see that the decision capability was there (understood that it's not the same without the probabilities, but even without it, the classifications were nearly identical).

> Sign in with ChatGPT: how is this not major news? They're launching with partnerships with a bunch of harnesses so you can use your subscription outside of Codex.

Maybe the sign on process is new but OpenAI has explicitly allowed subscriptions to be used in 3rd party apps at least as long as I've been a subscriber (a few months)

"Cloud Agents" is just a blatant copy of Anthropic's offering. "Dots" is a copy of the Grok bot. Regarding the release of 6.1 Sol - I’m not dismissing it, and the model will likely be useful for many things, but come on: there is no way your flagship model doesn't compete with Sonnet 5.5. I can't say for sure, but there must be a reason they didn't show any benchmarks. The live demos were absolutely ridiculous. Sure, there are some useful features, but overall, it feels like they're missing the mark. Instead of simplifying AI usage, they're complicating it to the point where it's no longer clear where you're supposed to do anything.

> I just don’t seem to have any problems that AI could solve in my personal life.

My microwave handle broke. I looked up the part needed to re-attach it; it's a a tiny piece of plastic. $30 each, and I need two of them, so $60.

So I grabbed photos of the part from online, which showed it against a 1inch square grid. I gave the photos to ChatGPT, told it the grid size, and asked it to make a 3D model.

It did it. I made a test print. It works perfectly.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I guess for me, it's been partly a matter of trying to unblind myself to problems I've grown accustomed to solving in a certain way.

Investors/founders are likely horrified to discover there is no industrial-scale moat in no time at all... they probably expected to have at least a 2-3 month window to capture market share and value.

I suspect Jev was intended to be an acquisition play and instead OAI said "nah, we're good" literally 2 weeks to the day after its launch. Anthropic and the Chinese labs are almost certainly soon to follow.

They're rumored to be in the early stages of a billion dollar round to value the company at $10B. Best of luck with that.

Validated, envigorated ?

The reaction to Jev has been huge, as has been OpenAI's speed here is announcing a "not quite ready yet" competitor... the idea of Jev is one of those "Doh! Why didn't I think of it!" moments ... in retrospect it's obvious that business automation is all about decision making and the market for this is massive. Up until now most people just saw this as a use case for LLMs, until TypeSafe/Jev came along and said "actually you don't need an LLM for this ...".

I'm sure TypeSafe realized the idea is a winner and expected competition, although maybe not quite so fast?

The question now is how seriously OpenAI take this, and are they willing to compete with Jev on price, thereby massively reducing Luna margins (which OpenAI's "Decisions API" is based on)? I guess if you can't make $0.10/M for Luna, then $0.04/M is better than just giving that market to a competitor, assuming you're profitable at $0.04/M.

Flattered, I assume.