DifferentDance8 wrote:

(#360)
Guys, to solve this whole “too much money for the ST to pay for” problem, just… ask the users to BYOK? Maybe save it in Account Settings, potentially using local storage or cookies?

Preferably, also make it work for HuggingFace or even Cohere API tokens (which are free unlike OpenAI tokens) as well

I think any systems that require payment are rejected. Should work better as an unofficial extension if they ever support these.

DifferentDance8 wrote:

Guys, to solve this whole “too much money for the ST to pay for” problem, just… ask the users to BYOK? Maybe save it in Account Settings, potentially using local storage or cookies?

Preferably, also make it work for HuggingFace or even Cohere API tokens (which are free unlike OpenAI tokens) as well

then most users couldn't use it, since most users dont have the money or motivation to pay $5 a month for some little ai on a coding site
but, also…

TestAcc_StopAsking wrote:

Fairly sure there's an age requirement for OpenAI services including GPT which most Scratch users likely don't meet.

Someone could just

when green flag clicked
forever
Switch costume to (Ask chat gpt [give me a 1000 word essay about scratch]::extensions)

Switch costume to (Ask chat gpt [give me a 1000 word essay about scratch]::extensions)

Switch costume to (Ask chat gpt [give me a 1000 word essay about scratch]::extensions)

end

And make scratch team run out of money

To prevent ddosing chatgpt could be only if the person has their own API key, the token shouldn't be a block however instead a setting to prevent people from seeing their token. I'm unsure how remixes will go along with this though.

josueart wrote:

Mogus_man wrote:

isn't an OpenAI key $5 a month? no support, financial disaster

No, you pay per 1k tokens. https://openai.com/pricing

One thousand dollars- tokens do cost money too right-

DifferentDance8 wrote:

Guys, to solve this whole “too much money for the ST to pay for” problem, just… ask the users to BYOK? Maybe save it in Account Settings, potentially using local storage or cookies?

I don't think making something pay-to-use on a kids website is that great of an idea, considering Scratch has rejected things like that in the paxt

no support this could just be used to cheat on essays or stuff like that, chatGPT is blocked in my school so adding chatGPT to scratch would probably get scratch blocked as well and in many other schools as well

Semi-support. That is a cool idea. But it always takes a long time to make advanced robots like ChatGPT.

Caramels_Secrets wrote:

Semi-support. That is a cool idea. But it always takes a long time to make advanced robots like ChatGPT.

The robot is already made, the estabilished problem is paying for the ChatGPT API keys.

Basilikos wrote:

The estabilished problem is paying for the ChatGPT API keys.

True.

I think this is a bad idea. Not the idea of using AI to help learn but directly using within Scratch. AI is unreliable, and I just don't think it would help you learn much.

Not to mention the resource limitations. Just learn how to program in Scratch, it's not that hard.

How would AI work in a block-based coding sense? Also, from my experience, ChatGPT is a pretty miserable coder.
A payment system could work, but Scratch is meant to be a free coding website accessible to everybody.
With well over a million users active each month, this would cost a ton of money and energy to keep running.

the_awsome_penguinja wrote:

no support this could just be used to cheat on essays or stuff like that, chatGPT is blocked in my school so adding chatGPT to scratch would probably get scratch blocked as well and in many other schools as well

This is true. Schools normally have AI banned, and coding, even in Scratch, may be marked.
If the AI was complex enough, it could create intricately designed code for you, but it would likely be way over your skill level and would probably be almost unreadable to an unskilled coder (Me when I enter somebody else's projects fr)
Using AI to create projects and code doesn't teach you much, as it isn't you writing it.
No support.

PRO TIP: Get ChatGPT yourself and ask it for advice

Creator-H wrote:

(#372)
A payment system could work, but Scratch is meant to be a free coding website accessible to everybody.

They literally cannot do this, the ST is nonprofit

If they make any profit besides donations, merch and a few other things I forgot about, they will be goners, straight up done for.

Zydrolic wrote:

Creator-H wrote:

(#372)
A payment system could work, but Scratch is meant to be a free coding website accessible to everybody.

They literally cannot do this, the ST is nonprofit

If they make any profit besides donations, merch and a few other things I forgot about, they will be goners, straight up done for.

Objection!
charities can run subscriptions, such as the National Trust here in the UK, since it counts as donations

Zydrolic wrote:

Creator-H wrote:

(#372)
A payment system could work, but Scratch is meant to be a free coding website accessible to everybody.

They literally cannot do this, the ST is nonprofit

*ahem*

Creator-H wrote:

but Scratch is meant to be a free coding website accessible to everybody.

EngineerRunner wrote:

(#374)
Objection!
charities can run subscriptions, such as the National Trust here in the UK, since it counts as donations

I forgot

Elijah999999 wrote:

(#375)
*ahem*

Creator-H wrote:

but Scratch is meant to be a free coding website accessible to everybody.

That's just saying a different reason as to why it shouldn't happen.

Zydrolic wrote:

Elijah999999 wrote:

(#375)
*ahem*

Creator-H wrote:

but Scratch is meant to be a free coding website accessible to everybody.

That's just saying a different reason as to why it shouldn't happen.

Okay, but you cutting that part of their post out made it look like they want this added. They included a reason about why it shouldn't, so *I don't think* they were serious.

Zydrolic wrote:

That's just saying a different reason as to why it shouldn't happen.

He pointed out that you corrected the guy after he corrected himself directly in the next sentence on his post, outlining the fact the first solution he outlined wasn't viable.
So your post is just a feeble attempt of debating a point which you're actually in favour of.

Elijah999999 wrote:

(#377)
Okay, but you cutting that part of their post out made it look like they want this added. They included a reason about why it shouldn't, so *I don't think* they were serious.

“but Scratch is meant to be a free coding website accessible to everybody. ” was literally not cut from the quote at all…?
EDIT: I see what you mean now, I didn't read after that one sentence. Man I'm blind lol

Basilikos wrote:

(#378)
He pointed out that you corrected the guy after he corrected himself directly in the next sentence on his post, outlining the fact the first solution he outlined wasn't viable.

Yeah I know that was stupid to do

Basilikos wrote:

(#378)
So your post is just a feeble attempt of debating a point which you're actually in favour of.

Technically everyone is in favor of their points.

Zydrolic wrote:

Yeah I know that was stupid to do

No it wasn't, it was just another way to say that making us pay isn't viable as a solution.

Zydrolic wrote:

Technically everyone is in favor of their points.

mindblow