Their weekly active user number is 10% of the estimated total number of Internet users (and growing rapidly). It's quite hard for that to happen with a high churn rate, because they'd very quickly run out of new users. For the numbers to remain high, either the users are retained of they return.
Oh, well if that is the standard of evidence that is acceptable to you then here is some contradictory evidence. I paid for ChatGPT for 2 months and then canceled it. Did not even bother getting it trough work after that.
On a more serious note the only ones that could prove that ChatGPT user retention numbers are really good is OpenAi. Since it would be very good for them to do that and they haven't done it one should infer that the numbers aren't that good.
That's fine. I'm not the one making claims about chatGPTs retention. But assuming they have poor retention is just silly.
Why would OpenAI share their retention numbers for their competitors to know? Nobody outside of silly AI-skeptic HN devs would think they have crappy retention.
> 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.
There seems to be a fairly large cohort among the HN crowd that does not understand the hold ChatGPT has on the cultural zeitgeist.
No normie in my life ever talks of using Gemini or Llama in their day to day life. Maybe some turbo twitter addict boomies talk about using grok, but that's about it.
Regular people are leveraging chatGPT to pick up the slack that google search enshittification left in their lives. It's a Skype to Zoom shift and lots of people here seem to not really appreciate it. They are too caught up on esoteric benchmark scores to recognize the tectonic plates moving beneath them.
> And there aren’t enough technical people on the planet to pay those bills.
This rings so true to me. The tech side seems hyperfocused in on these diminishing return results around benchmarks, but I just don't see a 4% improvement in X benchmark as any kind of market mover.
