Hacker News Reader

Comment by boredatoms | Hacker News Reader

Im surprised some countries dont have consumer protection laws that would force them to be more explicit/accurate

but to do accurate billing, they would have to tell us when our usage triggers a guard rail and causes our query to be rerouted or denied.

And if they do that accurately, there's no stopping someone from mapping the guard rails.

Clearly that outcome is more uncomfortable than what we have now, which is enough people seem to be okay with vague billing.

First, I wouldn't put it past OpenAI to charge even if your prompt triggered the guardrails, transferring responsibility is their style.

Second, how does vague billing prevent someone from mapping the "I'm sorry, I can't help you with that" style of responses to map the guardrails?

Move fast and bill things

or they could simply remove the annoying guardrails

How would that work? It's not simple to set a price, when you have a fixed asset. Seems more complicated to set price on a product (ChatGPT), where the product is just a shell for something else entirely (the model), that changes by the month.

Very easily, they do it for their API. You just set a limit in tokens.

On what tokens? The ones of today's model, or tomorrow's?

The API makes it simple, yes. They make you pay per token per model. A new model has different prices. Not being able to do that is what makes it not so very simple.

Just say you get $100 of credit and different models cost different rates.

Are you serious? If you used 10$ of your subscription until 10th of month and then prices changed, well, the rest of your subscription uses new prices, that's basic math.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com