Never name a business for a place, If you move two suburbs over, you company name will seem weird.
I like to name companies so that people know what the company does.
Little Bo Peep web development
Not Little Bo Peep if you get my drift?
Jims cosmetics allows for expansion into other niches, register both domains and focus on the clowns niche on a blog linked to the main website. if that makes sense
cost of choppers are yet another factor
Kitchen Units, upmarketish, I find the facebook crowd are arm and leg people, Twitter just doesn’t do it for me, I havent really tried pinterst and insta in earnest but am getting results elsewhere
I found one that translated a huge chunk of a book I am writing in Afrikaans back to English, That is impressive, now there is a tool I will pay money for.
I run a small business and am trying to use better tech to get better results,
Not Dale or GPT, I’ve been having fun with some of the others. The ones I really want to try are only for subscribers
you said it better than I did
way too many for me, for one of my businesses and then for another it may work but
a) what market,
b) define quality lead.
You worked free, you took bread out of their mouths nd you want them to train you. I think you have a problem understanding what business is about, I don’t want to advertise for other photographers on my website, I sure as hell am not going to teach them how to market, and become my competition.
I also wouldn’t expect them to hand over all their trade secrets.
it must be hard being you, always jumping to conclusions not in evidence. Surely that must be tiring?
yeah if you consider a subscribtion to poe.com free, then we have a different concept of free.
EXplain the ethical problem? Is competition not the backbone of Capitalism, and the fact that they don’t prevent others from taking pictures as well leads me to the conclusion that there is no ethical problem, just one more tog taking snaps.
and a cabinet maker, this is fun
As a seasoned adopter of innovations, I’ve ventured into various technologies, including exploring ChatGPT 3.5. My journey from early Twitter days to experimenting with AI has been a ride with its highs and lows. However, when it comes to the realm of cabinet making, my experience with ChatGPT 3.5 has left me skeptical.
In the intricate world of crafting cabinets, precision is key. Unfortunately, ChatGPT 3.5’s shortcomings, such as inaccurate counting, difficulties in following instructions, and a tendency to recycle content, raise concerns. While it may serve as a useful tool for brainstorming or generating initial outlines, entrusting it with the creation of original, trustworthy content for a cabinet making business seems like a stretch.
The fast-paced nature of the industry demands meticulous attention to detail. However, the repetitiveness in responses, often resorting to generic phrases like “yadda yadda,” makes me wonder how many in the cabinet making community might inadvertently be sharing identical AI-generated content without proper scrutiny.
While AI can be a valuable asset for efficiency, especially in a business like cabinet making, the credibility and uniqueness of crafted content are non-negotiable. OpenAI suggests an upgrade to GPT-4, but for a serious cabinet making business, the question remains: Does GPT-4 truly address these concerns and offer a significant leap forward in content creation for a business that values precision and authenticity? Convince me that the transition is not just an upgrade but a game-changer for a cabinet making enterprise.
and rewritten for a photographer
As a seasoned photographer always on the lookout for cutting-edge tools, my experience with ChatGPT 3.5 left me underwhelmed. Its limitations in precision and inability to grasp instructions made it more of a brainstorming aid than a reliable content creator for my photography blogs.
Concerns about content repetition and the generic nature of responses lingered. In the fast-paced world of photography, it seemed like many might be churning out similar AI-generated content without bothering to verify it. While ChatGPT served well for creating outlines, I hesitated to trust it with crafting original and meticulously fact-checked photography content.
Now, considering the potential upgrade to GPT-4, I’m curious about whether it addresses these issues. Can it truly provide a more accurate, context-aware, and creative approach to photography content? Does it understand the nuances of the field and produce diverse, original outputs? If GPT-4 proves to be a reliable tool, it could be a game-changer for serious photographers aiming for high-quality, unique content in the ever-evolving photography landscape.
I’m open to being convinced. How does GPT-4 enhance the content creation process for photographers, ensuring it aligns with the standards of those deeply invested in their craft?
THis is 3.5’s answer.
I appreciate your candid feedback and concerns about ChatGPT. It’s valuable to hear different perspectives on the tool’s capabilities and limitations. While I can’t change your past experiences or preferences, I can share some information about the improvements made in GPT-4 that might address some of your concerns.
GPT-4 builds upon the strengths of GPT-3.5 but aims to be more reliable, creative, and context-aware. It has undergone extensive training on diverse and vast datasets, providing it with a broader understanding of various topics. Here are a few key points that might address your concerns:
Content Quality: GPT-4 is designed to provide more accurate and contextually relevant responses. It should be better at following instructions, generating coherent content, and avoiding repetition.
Originality: GPT-4 is trained to be more creative and generate content that is less likely to be repetitive. It should be better at producing original and diverse outputs.
Fact-Checking: While AI models like GPT-4 can assist in generating content, it’s essential to use them as tools in collaboration with human writers. Fact-checking and editing remain crucial steps in the content creation process to ensure accuracy and reliability.
Customization: GPT-4 can be fine-tuned for specific tasks or industries, allowing for more tailored and accurate results. This could be beneficial for someone serious about their business, as the AI can be trained on domain-specific data.
Feedback Loop: OpenAI encourages users to provide feedback on problematic outputs through the user interface. This feedback loop helps improve the model over time, addressing issues and enhancing its capabilities.
However, it’s important to note that no AI model is perfect, and there will always be room for improvement. While GPT-4 aims to address some of the limitations you mentioned, it’s crucial to use AI as a complement to human expertise rather than a replacement.
Ultimately, the decision to upgrade or use any AI tool depends on your specific needs, preferences, and the nature of your work. If you’re uncertain about the benefits, you might want to try GPT-4 and assess its performance based on your specific use cases.
yes R 400.00 in my language 20 tools that each solve a small problem is a weeks income in my part of the world, in your part of the world that $20 is two cups of coffee
yeah when you earn dollars its easy to spend them, when you earn Rands its a lot more complex, 1 of your dollars is 20 of my Rands, W#hen budgeting its easy to say it’s only R 400,00 but when there are 10 tools that can each make a marginal difference, that is a weeks earnings down the spout.
Everything I have read suggests specificity
Now that is the best idea I have seen, I will test your methodology
Ahh where do I start, employees that think you just go to the bank and get free money, Peple prefer failures to people that are not in the mould.