OpenAI rolls out GPT-4.1 to all ChatGPT paying subscribers
This version of the ChatGPT AI chatbot rolled out to the company's developer API last month , offering upgrades in speed and efficiency over the GPT-4.5 model that it replaced (yes, that is a slightly convoluted numbering system). OpenAI is iterating models at a breakneck speed this year; GPT-4.5 just debuted in February and is already being outpaced in stats by a new version.
The company also has a GPT-4.1 mini option that will replace the current small model of GPT-4o mini . That upgrade will happen for all tiers, including the free one. GPT-4.1 mini will be the fallback option for free users once they reach the cap on their access to the heftier GPT-4o model.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
Amazon vs. Microsoft: Which Cloud Computing Giant Is the Better Buy?
Amazon and Microsoft are the two largest cloud computing companies. Microsoft Azure has been growing more quickly, but a strained relationship with OpenAI leaves some questions. Amazon's AWS, meanwhile, has a vertical integration advantage. 10 stocks we like better than Amazon › When it comes to cloud computing, Amazon (NASDAQ: AMZN) and Microsoft (NASDAQ: MSFT) are the clear leaders. Both are seeing strong growth, both are leaning heavily into artificial intelligence (AI), and both are investing billions to meet increasing demand. But if I had to pick just one stock to own right now, I'd go with Amazon. Let's break down why. While best known for its e-commerce operations, Amazon basically invented the cloud computing industry due to its own struggles trying to scale up its infrastructure. Today, Amazon Web Services (AWS) is the largest cloud computing provider in the world, with nearly 30% market share. AWS is also both Amazon's most profitable segment and fastest-growing, with revenue climbing 17% last quarter. AI has been a big reason for this. Customers are using AWS solutions like Bedrock and SageMaker to help them build and run their own AI models and apps. Bedrock gives companies access to foundation models they can customize, while SageMaker is more of an end-to-end solution. Once these models are built, they then run on AWS infrastructure, locking customers into a recurring, high-margin business. On top of that, Amazon has built its own custom AI chips through its Annapurna Labs unit. Trainium is designed to train large language models (LLMs), while Inferentia handles inference. These chips are optimized for performance and cost, consuming less power and delivering better results than general-purpose graphic processing units (GPUs) for specific AI tasks. This gives Amazon a cost advantage over rivals like Microsoft and should lead to better operating leverage as usage scales. Beyond the cloud, Amazon is also using AI to improve its e-commerce business, as well. The company is now using agentic AI to power autonomous warehouse robots. These robots continue to become more sophisticated and can perform multiple tasks. Some can even spot damaged goods before they're shipped, improving customer satisfaction and reducing costly returns. It recently just surpassed 1 million robots in its warehouses. It's also using AI to improve efficiency in its logistics operations. AI is helping map out better routes, while mapping tools like Wellspring can help delivery drivers better navigate complicated drop-offs at places like large apartment complexes. Amazon is also using AI tools to help third-party sellers better market products and target customers more effectively. It's worth noting that its sponsored ad business has become one of the largest digital ad platforms in the world and is growing quickly. There's no denying that Microsoft is a powerhouse. The company has long been the dominant player in worker productivity software with programs such as Word, Excel, and PowerPoint, and its Windows operating system powers most non-Apple computers. However, Microsoft's cloud computing unit Azure has been its big growth driver, with AI accelerating that momentum. Last quarter, Azure revenue jumped 33% year over year (35% in constant currency), with AI services making up nearly half of the growth. Azure is currently firing on all cylinders, but Microsoft has been running into capacity constraints. To address that, Microsoft plans to increase its capital spending in fiscal 2026. It will also shift more investment into shorter-lived assets like GPUs and servers, which it said are more directly tied to revenue. Microsoft made an early and aggressive investment in OpenAI, and the ability to give customers access to the start-up's leading LLM is one of the biggest reasons why Azure has been taking market share in the cloud computing space. Microsoft has also deeply integrated OpenAI's technology into its own products. For example, the technology is used to help power its AI assistant copilots in Word, Excel, and other productivity tools. At $30 per month per enterprise user, Microsoft's copilots have been a nice growth driver for the company. Microsoft has also expanded AI beyond Office 365. It's added new copilots focused on cybersecurity and even launched Muse, an AI model designed to help develop and preserve older video games. Meanwhile, its GitHub Copilot has been one of its best-performing, helping drive solid growth for its code-hosting and collaboration platform. However, the company's relationship with OpenAI has become strained. Microsoft is no longer the exclusive data center provider for the company, and the two have been fighting over the terms of Microsoft's investment, including whether it will get access to the intellectual property of OpenAI's pending acquisition of Windsurf. Microsoft's investment in OpenAI is one of the most attractive parts of its story. It's currently entitled to 49% of OpenAI Global LLC's profits, capped at roughly 10 times its nearly $10 billion investment. But OpenAI is looking to renegotiate the deal as it looks to restructure into a for-profit company. Both Amazon and Microsoft are great companies with strong cloud computing platforms and big AI opportunities. However, Amazon has the edge. Amazon's biggest advantage is that its cloud computing platform is vertically integrated. It can provide a wide range of services from custom chips to infrastructure to high-margin services. Its Inferentia and Trainium chips are helping lower its cloud computing costs, and AWS offers a wide array of foundation AI models, both from itself and other leading tech companies. Microsoft, meanwhile, is reliant on expensive chips from Nvidia and AI models from OpenAI, with whom tensions have been growing. Microsoft is looking to develop its own AI chips, but it was recently reported that its next-generation Maia AI chip has been delayed. Azure has been growing more quickly than AWS, but it faces a lot more unanswered questions at the moment. Microsoft is a solid stock to own long-term, but right now, Amazon is the better buy. Before you buy stock in Amazon, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Amazon wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $699,558!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $976,677!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 1,060% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 180% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join . See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of June 30, 2025 John Mackey, former CEO of Whole Foods Market, an Amazon subsidiary, is a member of The Motley Fool's board of directors. Geoffrey Seiler has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, and Nvidia. The Motley Fool recommends the following options: long January 2026 $395 calls on Microsoft and short January 2026 $405 calls on Microsoft. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Amazon vs. Microsoft: Which Cloud Computing Giant Is the Better Buy? was originally published by The Motley Fool
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
Before You Buy That 'Cheap' Stock, Read the Proxy, Not The Pitch Deck
The deeper you dig into companies, the more dysfunction you find. This is not due to businesses being inherently broken, but rather because the incentives are flawed. On the surface, stocks can look cheap. Screens flag low multiples, analyst notes highlight growth potential, and management sounds confident on the call. But beneath that narrative, capital often gets quietly misallocated. Empire-building creeps in. Decisions tilt toward boosting bonuses, not shareholder value. And the metrics that matter most, the ones buried in incentive structures and insider behavior, go ignored by most investors. As Amazon Doubles Down on Robotaxis, Is AMZN Stock a Buy? Why Citi Thinks Micron Stock Is Headed to $150 After Earnings Beat OpenAI's Partnership With Microsoft is Good, Says CEO Sam Altman; There's 'Tension,' But Already Planning 'Next Decade Together' Markets move fast. Keep up by reading our FREE midday Barchart Brief newsletter for exclusive charts, analysis, and headlines. This is where the true significance emerges. If you don't monitor executive pay and insider moves, you're overlooking potential value leaks or, crucially, unlocked opportunities. These aren't soft signals. They're hard tells. The clues are in the proxy filings, the timing of stock sales, and the structure of performance hurdles. This issue isn't about corporate morality. It's about money. For investors who know where to look, misaligned governance isn't a red flag; it's a roadmap to alpha. Capital Allocation. The Hidden Cost Of Ego Capital allocation is where the quiet destruction of value often begins and it's rarely about incompetence. It's about incentives. Expect empire building when a CEO's bonus is based on top-line growth instead of return on invested capital (ROIC). That usually means overpaying for acquisitions, not because they're strategic, but because they build legacy. Cash gets hoarded instead of returned, while buybacks and dividends are treated as afterthoughts, despite being the most shareholder-friendly tools available. Look closer and you'll see companies issuing millions in stock-based compensation while continuing to dilute shareholders by printing more shares. Others hang onto underperforming divisions year after year, not because they add value but because breaking them up would shrink the C-suite. This isn't hypothetical. We've seen it in sprawling conglomerates that refuse to divest low-ROIC segments, in tech firms obsessed with topline over profit, and in boards that rubber-stamp comp plans designed to reward size not efficiency. The result? On paper, a stock appears inexpensive, yet it lacks the structural ability to increase value. The investor takeaway is simple: Read the proxy. Please disregard the glossy investor deck. What's buried in the footnotes of a compensation plan tells you far more than the income statement. Incentives, not narratives, dictate capital allocation in this context. Executive Compensation: Where The Real Priorities Lie At The Edge, we track dozens of these triggers across spinoffs, restructurings, and breakups. Why? Executive behavior concerning value unlocks more insights than any analyst report. When comp plans prioritize optics over outcomes, it's a red flag. However, when the incentives align with the creation of real shareholder value, it's a positive sign. Take (VLTO): Prior to the spin from Danaher, we flagged their LTIP structure as heavily performance-driven, measured on metrics like ROIC and TSR over three years, not revenue padding. This clarity indicated that management was pursuing a long-term strategy, and the market has appropriately rewarded them. In contrast, (ILMN) became a textbook example of what happens when executive compensation favors empire-building over accountability. Executive pay isn't just about fairness, it's about foresight. If management wins regardless of shareholder outcomes, you won't. Insider Behavior: The Tells You Can't Ignore In a world of carefully managed narratives, insider behavior is one of the few signals that's hard to fake. When insiders buy during periods of structural change, before the narrative becomes clear, it indicates strong conviction. When insiders are selling after the story has played out and retail investors have piled in, it often indicates a market peak. It's not just about the transaction; it's about timing, size, and frequency. Does a solitary, minor purchase follow a challenging quarter? That's merely surface-level activity. However, when multiple buys occur across management tiers, a phenomenon known as a bullish cluster, it signals a significant underlying trend. (ECG) serves as a prime example. In February 2025, three insiders—Marcy Maximillian J, Ryan Edward A, and Michael Della Rocca—each bought stock worth between $49k and $53k within days of one another. There was no flashy announcement or hype. Instead, they acted with a quiet conviction. Shortly after, ECG's stock surged nearly 69%, well before the market narrative caught up. Don't chase headlines; track behavior. And when the people who know the business best put real capital to work, we take notice. In a noisy market, that kind of signal is gold. Spinoffs: The Ultimate Incentive Transparency Test If you want to see what management really believes, watch what happens during a spinoff. Spinoffs compel executives to reveal their true intentions. Incentives get reset, structures rebuilt, and priorities laid bare, usually for the first time. The Form 10 is often more revealing than any investor deck, offering a raw look at how aligned (or not) leadership is with future shareholders. What should investors watch for? Start with the comp plan. 'Founder-like' pay structures where leadership takes equity over salary and ties it to long-term value creation are a bullish tell. If the former executives from the parent company maintain significant ownership in the spin-off and avoid selling their shares immediately after the separation, that is another positive indicator. When they tie equity awards to real performance hurdles (ROIC, TSR), rather than just revenue optics, it demonstrates their alignment with the right metrics. In spinoffs, incentives reset and clarity reaches its peak. Study these transactions closely because they offer the cleanest read on intent. If the incentives align, value usually follows. What Smart Investors Do Differently Smart investors don't just screen for valuation; they screen for behavior. They know governance isn't a checkbox. It's a signal. They probe beyond the earnings deck to understand who, how, and why they are receiving compensation. They treat insider behavior and compensation structure as core parts of the thesis, not footnotes. This is why you will outperform in special situations: You are not buying stories. You're buying setups, where incentives align, risk is asymmetric, and behavior signals what spreadsheets can't. Value Is Leaking. Are You Watching? Most investors chase earnings and price targets. But value doesn't leak from spreadsheets; it leaks from boardrooms. You're missing the setup and the upside if you're not monitoring insiders' actions, their compensation, and their beliefs. Incentives shape outcomes. Behavior reveals conviction. And in special situations, that's where the real alpha lives. On the date of publication, Jim Osman did not have (either directly or indirectly) positions in any of the securities mentioned in this article. All information and data in this article is solely for informational purposes. This article was originally published on Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
The Hill
10 hours ago
- The Hill
The New York Times wants your private ChatGPT history — even the parts you've deleted
Millions of Americans share private details with ChatGPT. Some ask medical questions or share painful relationship problems. Others even use ChatGPT as a makeshift therapist, sharing their deepest mental health struggles. Users trust ChatGPT with these confessions because OpenAI promised them that the company would permanently delete their data upon request. But last week, in a Manhattan courtroom, a federal judge ruled that OpenAI must preserve nearly every exchange its users have ever had with ChatGPT — even conversations the users had deleted. As it stands now, billions of user chats will be preserved as evidence in The New York Times's copyright lawsuit against OpenAI. Soon, lawyers for the Times will start combing through private ChatGPT conversations, shattering the privacy expectations of over 70 million ChatGPT users who never imagined their deleted conversations could be retained for a corporate lawsuit. In January, The New York Times demanded — and a federal magistrate judge granted — an order forcing OpenAI to preserve 'all output log data that would otherwise be deleted' while the litigation was pending. In other words, thanks to the Times, ChatGPT was ordered to keep all user data indefinitely — even conversations that users specifically deleted. Privacy within ChatGPT is no longer an option for all but a handful of enterprise users. Last week, U.S. District Judge Sidney Stein upheld this order. His reasoning? It was a 'permissible inference' that some ChatGPT users were deleting their chats out of fear of being caught infringing the Times's copyrights. Stein also said that the preservation order didn't force OpenAI to violate its privacy policy, which states that chats may be preserved 'to comply with legal obligations.' This is more than a discovery dispute. It's a mass privacy violation dressed up as routine litigation. And its implications are staggering. If courts accept that any plaintiff can freeze millions of uninvolved users' data, where does it end? Could Apple preserve every photo taken with an iPhone over one copyright lawsuit? Could Google save a log of every American's searches over a single business dispute? The Times is opening Pandora's box, threatening to normalize mass surveillance as another routine tool of litigation. And the chilling effects may be severe; when people realize their AI conversations can be exploited in lawsuits that they're not part of, they'll self-censor — or abandon these tools entirely. Worst of all, the people most affected by this decision — the users — were given no notice, no voice, and no chance to object. When one user tried to intervene and stop this order, the magistrate judge dismissed him as not 'timely,' apparently expecting 70 million Americans to refresh court dockets daily and maintain litigation calendars like full-time paralegals. And last Thursday, Stein heard only from advocates for OpenAI and the Times, not from advocates for ordinary people who use ChatGPT. Affected users should have been allowed to intervene before their privacy became collateral damage. The justification for the unprecedented preservation order was paper-thin. The Times argued that people who delete their ChatGPT conversations are more likely to have committed copyright infringement. And as Stein put it in the hearing, it's simple 'logic' that '[i]f you think you're doing something wrong, you're going to want that to be deleted.' This fundamentally misapprehends how people use generative AI. The idea that users are systematically stealing the Times's intellectual property through ChatGPT, then cleverly covering their tracks, ignores the thousand legitimate reasons people delete chats. Users share intimate details about their lives with ChatGPT; of course they clear their conversations. This precedent is terrifying. Now, Americans' private data could be frozen when a corporate plaintiff simply claims — without proof — that Americans' deleted content might add marginal value to their case. Today it's ChatGPT. Tomorrow it could be your cleared browser history or your location data. All they need to do is argue that Americans who delete things must have something to hide. We hope the Times will back away from its stunning position. This is the newspaper that won a Pulitzer for exposing domestic wiretapping in the Bush era. The paper that built its brand in part by exposing mass surveillance. Yet here it is, demanding the biggest surveillance database in recorded history — a database that the National Security Agency could only dream of — all to win a copyright case. Now, in the next step of this litigation, the Times's lawyers will start sifting through users' private chats — all without users' knowledge or consent. To be clear, the question of whether OpenAI infringed the Times's copyrights is for the courts to decide. But the resolution of that dispute should not cost 70 million Americans their privacy. What the Times calls 'evidence,' millions of Americans call 'secrets.' Maybe you have asked ChatGPT how to handle crippling debt. Maybe you have confessed why you can't sleep at night. Maybe you've typed thoughts you've never said out loud. Delete should mean delete. The New York Times knows better — it just doesn't care. Jay Edelson has been recognized by Forbes as one of America's top 200 lawyers and by Fortune as one of the most creative people in business. His privacy cases have recovered over $1.5 billion for consumers nationwide.
