> That's fine. I'm not the one making claims about chatGPTs retention
But you did. Here, I'll quote you: "There is no evidence that ChatGPT has a retention problem. Quite the contrary.". That is your claim about ChatGPTs retention, that it is good. Later we find out that there is no evidence but only anecdotes to support your claim.
> But assuming they have poor retention is just silly.
What would be silly is to assume that they have good retention numbers. The logic of it I wrote in the previous post. What logic are you using to arrive to your conclusion?
> Why would OpenAI share their retention numbers for their competitors to know?
One would usually share those numbers to get more money from investors.
What the fuck would their competitors do with their retention numbers?
> Nobody outside of silly AI-skeptic HN devs would think they have crappy retention.
They say that name calling is the last resort of the truly desperate. No wonder your post ends like this.
> One would usually share those numbers to get more money from investors.
.... yes they share them with their prospective investors, not publicly lol. did you seriously just say this?
> What the fuck would their competitors do with their retention numbers?
The fact that you would even ask this question (and your ridiculous previous comment) shows your ineptitude and how pointless it is to discuss this with you
Run along now, go tell everyone how Dropbox is just a pointless FTP wrapper and will never catch on
> The fact that you would even ask this question (and your ridiculous previous comment) shows your ineptitude and how pointless it is to discuss this with you
Maybe look in the mirror. The fact that you wrote this instead of writing what their competitors could do with their retention numbers shows that there is no point in any discussion with you.
But you did. Here, I'll quote you: "There is no evidence that ChatGPT has a retention problem. Quite the contrary.". That is your claim about ChatGPTs retention, that it is good. Later we find out that there is no evidence but only anecdotes to support your claim.
> But assuming they have poor retention is just silly.
What would be silly is to assume that they have good retention numbers. The logic of it I wrote in the previous post. What logic are you using to arrive to your conclusion?
> Why would OpenAI share their retention numbers for their competitors to know?
One would usually share those numbers to get more money from investors.
What the fuck would their competitors do with their retention numbers?
> Nobody outside of silly AI-skeptic HN devs would think they have crappy retention.
They say that name calling is the last resort of the truly desperate. No wonder your post ends like this.