what? the post is literally titled "Amateur armed with ChatGPT solves an Erdős problem". stop spreading FUD about unaffordability

▲

bsza 5 hours ago | parent [-]

They used ChatGPT Pro to solve it. Over 50% of people in the world couldn't afford ChatGPT Pro ($200/mo) even if they spent more than half of their income on it. [1]

What was that about "spreading FUD about unaffordability"?

[1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-living-with-less-th...

▲

sunaookami 5 hours ago | parent [-]

They didn't buy ChatGPT Pro themselves. You could've done the same as the students in the article and get a free subscription if you were interested in this instead of trolling.

▲

bsza 4 hours ago | parent [-]

> You could've done the same

Please show me the steps to get a $200 subscription for free that works 100% of the time regardless of who you are. I'm listening.

▲

simianwords 3 hours ago | parent [-]

ChatGPT flattened the difference between top .0001 percentile mathematician and an amateur. This is the definition of making intelligence more available.

You are exaggerating the situation by essentially claiming since some people can’t afford 200 dollars this means ChatGPT is not democratising intelligence. It’s a bit strange to claim this because according to you it only becomes affordable when maximal number of people can afford it. It’s a bit childish.

Directionally it is democratising. Are more people able to afford higher level intelligence? Yes.

	▲	bsza 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> ChatGPT flattened the difference between top .0001 percentile mathematician and an amateur It flattened the difference between a top epsilon percentile mathematician and an amateur with money. It didn't flatten the difference between an amateur with a little money and an amateur with a lot of money. It widened it. That's the part I'm scared about. You are shrugging this off because it currently isn't that expensive. But we're talking about the massively subsidized price here, which is bound to get orders of magnitude higher when the bubble pops. Models are also likely to get much better. If it gets to a point where the only way to obtain exceptionally high intelligence is with an exceptionally high net worth and vice versa, how is that going to democratize anything?