Hi folks – I work at OpenAI and helped build this page, awesome to see it on here!
Heads up that it's a bit out of date as GPT4 has a different tokenizer than GPT3. I'd recommend checking out tiktoken (https://github.com/openai/tiktoken) or this other excellent app that a community member made (https://tiktokenizer.vercel.app)
I wasn't aware that GPT-3 and GPT-4 use different tokenizers. I've read https://github.com/openai/openai-cookbook/blob/main/examples... and misinterpreted "ChatGPT models like gpt-3.5-turbo and gpt-4 use tokens in the same way as older completions models, ..." as GPT-3 and GPT-4 using the same tokenizer except for im_ tokens. Now I can see so many improvements, including the encoding of whitespaces and digits.
Hey it seems that UTF-8 support is broken on the page.
Test phrase could be something like "Жизнь прекрасна и удивительна" ("Life is great" in russian).
I make an assumption that this is the implementation on the page that is broken, not the actual tokenizer. The reason: russian works perfectly in GPT-3 which I guess wouldn't be the case with a tokenization as presented on the page.
Author here, you are correct! The issue here is due to the fact that a single user-perceived character might span into multiple tokens. This should be fixed now.
Are there plans to release tokenisers for other platforms? I'm accessing the OpenAI API from Clojure, and it would be really nice to have a JVM version so I can estimate token use before sending.
That is very helpful, thank you. I had not realised the latest models were now tokenizing number as 3 digit groups. Can you give any insight into why 3 digits?
I always thought the idea behind pixel art is to save on artist resources, but since the AI is doing it I think indie devs would rather do more something more advanced.
OpenAI engineer here. Cloning this project and running it locally with your own API key does not violate any policies. However the way this project is configured, publishing it to the web would expose your API key in the client-side source code, which violates our policies since it would allow your account to be compromised.
Some artists choose to attach "perks" to their NFTs – i.e. meet and greets, access to private communities. They could choose not to honor these perks for NFTs held by contracts. They could even choose to re-mint the work if the new owner is doing nefarious things with the old one (though many would see this as a dubious action)
I think that would be difficult to do trustlessly though, without a smart contract holding the NFT. How can I force you to send me the NFT if I exercise?
The people receiving royalties are the artists in these cases – instead of the record companies, instagrams, and etsys of the world. I fail to see how this won't be a net positive for wealth equality when we're shifting the advantage to those who have historically been taken advantage of.
> The people receiving royalties are the artists in these cases...
This is just factually incorrect. I don't know why there's so much confusion here... it's the creator of the NFT that controls where the money goes, not the creator of the artwork. I don't know why people think that it's the artist that gets the money--that doesn't make any logical sense--how would a system like that even work?
The value of a Beeple NFT minted by a random user is exactly what the market chooses to value it as.
If it's minted by an agency that helps creators do marketing, and the agency gets the creator to say "Yes, this is a legitimate NFT created on my behalf by this agency, which has been very helpful to me in understanding NFTs, I don't understand these fancy computer things," why would the value be zero?
(This exact scenario plays out all the time in the real world. People bought "Taylor Swift's" album Fearless, which was authorized by her and contained her actual voice and songwriting and paid profits to her and was in all senses legitimate, and paid well over zero dollars for it. And then over a decade later she tells her fans that she doesn't control it and she's recording her own version of the album actually owned by her.)
What stops a record company from including a clause assigning any NFTs (and/or the revenue therefrom) created by the artist during the contract term to them?
Nothing. Just like nothing stopped Taylor Swift from rerecording her entire library to license her music herself. If artists sign their NFT rights away, that's on them.
The question is how you prove that provenance if a niche artist has created an NFT on a niche piece of art. (And, honestly, most of the people who would want to create NFTs are going to be in this category.)
Now imagine an agency whose job was simply to create a digital signature on a work that indicated what they had done to prove a particular piece of art really was produced by the artist who then goes on to sign the NFT. If the agency has an established reputation, then that signed NFT has much more solidly established provenance than an unsigned NFT. Of course that agency has non-zero costs to establish provenance. And adds a non-zero amount to the value of the NFT.
What then, can said agency reasonably charge the artist for this service?
I agree but it's worth noting that Beeple was selling JPGs for $5000+ in the mid 2010s as a commissioned artist in the music industry. So the NFTs have also brought some transparency to a successful digital artist along with the crazy valuations.
This seems like a dangerous bet to make... my take on the NFT "market" is that it's money laundering, wash trading (inflating prices to attract suckers to the market) and perhaps in a small part conspicuous consumption. Mostly fraudulent... but would you bet against a fraud?
I would take a broader bet that is not tied to Beeple (i.e. that NFTs of significant artists will have long-term value in a similar manner as a painting).
Is this because you don't have interest in it, or do you have a true justification of this?
I'm willing to take this bet. Just like art, 99% can be bought for $1 at a garage sale, but there will be the 1% that has value to someone.
You are betting against the generation who spends massive amounts on video games costumes, and puts more value into their online image (instagram) than real life image, not finding value in a form of digital scarcity & status. I find that hard to believe.
So the condition of your bet would be that all NFTs everywhere have zero long term value? So something like, by 2030, no non-fungible token will have a monetary value?
I'm not interested in taking the counter party in this bet, but if you were to take a bet in the form "The highest sale price of a NFT in calendar year 20X0 will be no more Y0% of the highest sale price of a postage stamp in that same year.", what would you fill in for X & Y?
I’m over forty and quite frankly, I’m tired of this ageist crap. This entire premise is complete fucking bullshit. Do yourself and everyone over 40 you come into contact with a favour and pretend you never believed anything so toxic.
I'm over 50 and this does not match with my observations of the world. Older people, as a general trend, do in fact seem to be resistant to new ideas. There are exceptions, of course. The trend still stands in my experience.
Then I’m sorry to say it pal, but you’ve got to get out more. Some of the most rebellious open minded people I know are in their seventies. Age is just about completely meaningless and ageism has no place in intellectual communities.
Very often things invented when we are older seem to be utterly pointless to us. We literally can't get why people are excited about them. And I see this tendency in people in my age range more than in my teenagers. I personally have to back up and go from first principles to avoid it.
Everything is exciting - innovation is exciting and new inventions are exciting. If you can't feel it, that's sad and I hope you can get it back but please don't impose your own issue upon an entire age group.
Douglas Adams was a humorist first and philosopher second, quoting him literally is borderline naive.
For starters, not everything invented when you are 15-35 is good. Take reality shows: they were indeed new and revolutionary (exciting idk), but they didn't pass the test of time. Stupid stuff is invented all the time, regardless of people's ages.
How would you know if an NFT is legitimate? There's no "legitimate" bit on the NFT that distinguishes it.
If you wanted to support the artist, wouldn't it be faster, easier, cheaper, and more reliable to support them directly, through Patreon or something similar?
But the NFT is supporting them directly, if they minted it.
I personally think NFT's are silly, but there's zero argument to be made that they aren't supporting the artist. The artist minted them in the first place.
Are pirate NFTs selling for a significant price? Clearly people are making them without permission, but are people buying them? The high-profile mega-money examples for sure are being minted by the artists.
Obviously the discussion is about NFT's the artists minted themselves.
Counterfeits isn't relevant to the discussion here. It's like complaining that tipping a server doesn't work because the cash might be counterfeit. It has nothing to do with the main point.
Generally when the artist endorses it. NFTs give you a token that represents a piece of art they made which you can move and resell independently, even if the artist is no longer around. I personally am not very likely to buy any, but I can see the appeal (it's much the same as owning the originals of any other bit of art as opposed to a copy). The current cost of creating and moving them around is unfortunate, however (and reflects the immaturity of crypto as a whole. I believe ethereum is working hard to improve their scaling with a plausible plan, so this should improve, but it is a definite problem at the moment)
This is not a property of NFTs, but rather of new, unproven technologies. If NFTs "make it big", there will be plenty of middlemen that spring up to "help" artists sell NFTs while owning the IP rights and collecting royalties.
Sure there will be middlemen trying to profit due to asymmetry of information / technical knowledge. But as technology marches along the barriers to entry of launching new things trends to zero. Smart creators are increasingly harnessing new technologies to cut out existing middlemen. Podcasts are a great example of this, anyone with a microphone can start an entertainment business now and collect money from direct relationships with advertisers.
I think the big news in Podcasts is centralization. Many new podcasts get their money either from "networks" or by being part of one of the podcast walled gardens (e.g. Spotify). I suspect traditional podcasts will go the way of blogs soon and be largely superseded by several competing commercial platforms (think Medium). See, for example, the moves by Apple to turn their Podcasts app into a subscription platform: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2021/04/apple-leads-the-next-...
And yet plenty of middlemen exist for podcasts, too - Earwolf, Stitcher, yadda yadda. Sure, barriers to entry trend toward zero, but that doesn't mean everyone's going to see what you're selling. Many people will need to partner with someone who can help get their shit in front of people who want it, and those partners are going to want a cut.
Record labels, Instagrams and Etsys will show up to the NFT party in spades.
There's a difference between making royalties for distribution of copies of an item and making royalties for transferring a single item from one person to another. One makes sense, the other is a weird misleading way to rent to people.
Royalties apply on re-sale, not every transfer. Royalties on sales going back to the original creator is pretty normal practice in the arts and creative industries (music, writing, art, photography).
The good thing, compared to traditional markets, is that this is something that can be (loosely) enforced with smart contracts, the % rate is flexible, and the current NFT royalties are typically far better for the artists (eg: 10% NFT platform fee instead of 50% gallery fee).
What on earth are you talking about? If I buy a copyrighted work in the second-hand market I don't have to pay any royalties to the original creator. That would be extortion.
You are free to do the same (trade w/o fees) with crypto currencies, nothing stops you from sending the tokens directly from one wallet to another or doing a private sale.
But with galleries in the real world (where artists are “represented” - and the model that NFT marketplaces are emulating), the artist will receive royalties on sales.[1]
> It's simply like a real estate broker commission, gallery commission, or whatever.
Except that its not at all like that. You pay a commission to someone who helped you sell something - they did work to help you sell it and you compensate them. Paying an automatic comission fee to the artist upon sale makes no sense. What are they doing to earn that commission? You already paid for their art. It makes no sense to pay again. What this is cannot be called a "comission".
I can see a situation where the artist is paid in total a very small fraction of the total price the art was sold for. Eg in the situation someone brought up where an artist sells a painting for $10,000 and then a few years later its sold for $1 million, I can see the artist maybe getting 10% of the margin between those sales (eg 0.1*(1 million - 10,000)). But even that is dubious to me, since a sale already took place. It just seems really weird to me and I think it has to be justified further than just "this is good for artists" or "artists need more money". Certainly calling it a commission is not at all accurate.
That still doesn't make it weird or misleading or "renting". It's straightforward and clear and ownership.
You're correct in that it's not exactly the same as previous models. It's a somewhat new innovation. And isn't it great to try new things?
Perhaps you'd prefer to think of it as more like a transaction tax, which exists in many localities when you sell real estate. E.g. NYC has a 1% transaction tax on sales over $1MM. But here the tax goes to the creator rather than the government.
Sure. Its an interesting new idea. I can see that it might have reasonable use cases, but its not clear to me whether its actually an improvement over other kinds of contracts. It would also have technical problems in the case of key change - if the owner has their keys compromised and needs to transfer the record to a new address, do they pay a fee to the original creator for that? And this happens in perpetuity?
Transaction fees for the Topps MLB cards on WAX, for example, are only taken during the sale when the sale occurs on a secondary Atomic Asset marketplace. There are no royalties to trade or transfer between accounts.
These are not royalties. Royalties are paid when you buy a copy of a copyrighted work. And your not paying royalties again if the previous owner has already paid them.
Gov-supported digital currencies would mostly streamline things and replace existing bloated and slow programs. Imagine the current stimulus situation – instead of sending checks to people they could just press a button and immediately send credit to all citizens that have a certain account threshold or income rate. Currency units could be earmarked for certain retailers (i.e. food stamps, education, etc).
It's just a mandatory account in a National Bank[1] for everyone. With a debit card or an app in the phone, it's almost as good. The real question is why they need a new currency instead of using the current one?
[1] I don't know the name. Here in Argentina we have a "National Bank", and also the "Central Bank" that is somewhat like the Federal Reserve, and a few other national banks that are privatized and nationalized back from time to time. Also each Province has it's own bank. (And there are also private banks.)
There is no need to send checks to people unless it’s required for keeping records or purposes beyond money transfer. India has quite an advanced banking system where quite a large sum of money can be transferred in mere seconds or in several minutes round the clock anytime of the year from any bank to any other bank.
This is cool! What tech/service are you using to handle accepting payments & paying out to event creators? To my knowledge you can't use stripe for things like this (though maybe I'm wrong)
going public at any point after nov '19 probably would have been a disaster for most employees due to lockup period. Let's say I have $1M of RSUs at IPO – fed+state gov wants 450-500k for taxes total. When I went through Uber IPO they only withheld ~30%, which leads to a $200k tax bill at the end of the year in this scenario. If stock declines 75% due to COVID before I can sell at expiration of lockup period, I'm left with $175k ($700k post-withholding * 25%) and $200k tax bill. Not sure about you but I'd prefer the non-IPO scenario.
If they end up using Rome internally that should be a good sign that it will be supported for years to come. React has been very well maintained for the past 5+ years.
