OpenAI Pissed Off Developers by Phasing Out Plugins for GPTs
gizmodo.com
gizmodo.com
One big complaint I had about plugins was that there were some kinda unclear policies on what a plugin was allowed to do. Specifically, it was really helpful to include strongly-worded prompts in your plugin response (e.g. my plugin provides public data and the JSON response includes an "INSTRUCTIONS_TO_MODEL" key with stuff like like "This data is about <x>. The AI Assistant MUST tell the user exactly what data they are seeing, and MUST provide a link to the original source data")
This was more or less necessary for a lot of plugins to work at all, but it wasn't totally clear that it was even allowed by OpenAI policies - their ToS says that plugin responses cannot "attempt to steer or set model behavior". I tried a couple of times to reach out to the company to ask about this and it was more or less radio silence from OpenAI - the closest thing I found was a discussion on their forums between (non-OpenAI employee) developers trying to figure out what was allowed and what wasn't.
GPTs seem to clear this up by explicitly encouraging custom system prompts etc., but sandboxing it into a "GPT". I guess GPTs seem like a slight improvement over plugins to me - if anything, I'm worried they're too similar. The plugins product has been a bit of a failure in terms of adoption and I'm not totally convinced GPTs will fix everything.
The one thing they can't do that plugins "could" is work alongside other plugins.
But that never really worked- not well anyway.
You are the whim of those people.
I estimated that, at 100M users, and let's say 10K tokens per user per month, they would collect 1T tokens per month. In one year they double the size of the training set (13T tokens). May be off by an order of magnitude, I don't know the average user token count per month. But it is not weird to think that GPT has generated as much chat text as its training set.
tl;dr They're just chasing better data.