Live data from Hacker News

GPT-5 is behind schedule

wsj.com

201–210 of 1001 posts

Re: GPT-5 is behind schedule

#201

"Orion’s problems signaled to some at OpenAI that the more-is-more strategy, which had driven much of its earlier success, was running out of steam." So LLMs finally hit the wall. For a long time, more data, bigger models, and more compute to drive them worked. But that's apparently not enough any more. Now someone has to have a new idea. There's plenty of money available if someone has one. The current level of LLM…

> Now someone has to have a new idea. There's plenty of money available if someone has one.

I honestly do claim to have some ideas where I see evidence that they might work (and I do attempt to work privately on a prototype if only out of curiosity and to see whether I am right). The bad news: these ideas very likely won't be helpful for these LLM companies because they are not useful for their agenda, and follow a very different approach.

So no money for me. :-(

Let me put it this way:

Have you ever talked to a person whose intelligence is miles above yours? It can easily become very exhausting. Thus an "insanely intelligent" AI would not be of much use for most people - it would think "too different" from such people.

There do exist tasks in commerce for which an insane amount of intelligence would make a huge difference (in the sense of being positive regarding some important KPIs), but these are rare. I can imagine some applications of such (fictional) "super-intelligent" AIs in finance and companies doing some bleeding-edge scientific research - but these are niche applications (though potentially very lucrative ones).

If OpenAI, Anthropic & Co were really attempting to develop some "super-smart" AI, they were working on such very lucrative niche applications where an insane amount of intelligence would make a huge difference, and where you can assume and train the AI operator to have a "Fields-medal level" intelligence.

Re: GPT-5 is behind schedule

#202
post #113

"OpenAI’s is called GPT-4, the fourth LLM the company has developed since its 2015 founding." - that sentence doesn't fill me with confidence in the quality of the rest of the article, sadly.

Articles these days are probably written by ChatGPT

Re: GPT-5 is behind schedule

#203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>GPT-5 is called GPT-4o This is the first I have heard of this in particular. Do you know of any article or source for more on the efforts to train GPT 5 and the decision to call it GPT 4o?

I think my biggest pet peeve is when someone shares an insight which is unmistakably based on intuition, inference, critical thinking, etc (all mental faculties we are allowed to use to come to conclusions in the face of information asymmetry btw) ...and then gets hit deadpan with the good old "Source?", like it's some sort of gotcha. I think people have started to confuse "making logical conclusions without perfect…

simply adding “i think” solves this. op was speculating with gravitas that needs sources

Re: GPT-5 is behind schedule

#204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>GPT-5 is called GPT-4o This is the first I have heard of this in particular. Do you know of any article or source for more on the efforts to train GPT 5 and the decision to call it GPT 4o?

I think my biggest pet peeve is when someone shares an insight which is unmistakably based on intuition, inference, critical thinking, etc (all mental faculties we are allowed to use to come to conclusions in the face of information asymmetry btw) ...and then gets hit deadpan with the good old "Source?", like it's some sort of gotcha. I think people have started to confuse "making logical conclusions without perfect…

My sister got taken in by drone conspiracy theories, because for her it was just "obvious" that nobody would ever mistake a plane for a drone.

Meanwhile, aeronautics experts whose job it is to know about this have created an entire lexicon for the various perceptual illusions we experience relating to flight and airborne objects, precisely because it involves conditions where our intuitions fail. Many of them have to do with inability to orient depth, distance, or motion for lights at night.

Every time someone says their speculation is "obvious" it rings every possible alarm bell for someone who has completely lost grasp of the ability to distinguish between facts and speculation.

The road to misinformation is paved with overconfident declarations of the form: "it's so obvious, who needs sources!"

Re: GPT-5 is behind schedule

#205

More palace intrigue, sigh. Meanwhile, the biggest opportunity lies not in whatever next thing OpenAI releases, but the rest of the enormous software industry actually integrating this technology and realizing the value it can deliver.

Believe me, people are seizing this "opportunity":

https://www.opb.org/article/2024/12/09/artificial-intelligen...

Re: GPT-5 is behind schedule

#206
post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s nothing grammatically offensive about this. It’s like saying, “Cars come in all colors. Mine is red.”

No, I'm complaining that just because GPT-4 is called GPT-4 doesn't mean it's the fourth LLM from OpenAI. Off the top of my head: GPT-2, Codex, GPT-3 in three different flavors (babbage, curie, davinci), GPT-3.5. Suggesting that GPT-4 was "fourth" simply isn't credible. Just the other day they announced a jump from o1 to o3, skipping o2 purely because it's already the name of a major telecommunications brand in Europ…

It’s somehow funny to hear a British company being described as ‘in Europe’, but I suppose you’re technically correct…

Re: GPT-5 is behind schedule

#207
post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think my biggest pet peeve is when someone shares an insight which is unmistakably based on intuition, inference, critical thinking, etc (all mental faculties we are allowed to use to come to conclusions in the face of information asymmetry btw) ...and then gets hit deadpan with the good old "Source?", like it's some sort of gotcha. I think people have started to confuse "making logical conclusions without perfect…

It's reasonable to ask for sources when an opinion is phrased as a fact, as GGP did. I don't see how you got that it was _unmistakably_ an opinion from that comment. There is no way to deduce by intuition alone that GPT-5 == GPT-4o. So either that person has some information the rest of us aren't privy to, or it's an opinion phrased as a fact. In either case, it deserves clarification.

On a second read I see that the comment notes that it is intended as speculation, but still it seems rather confident in its own accuracy and I am not even sure it's wrong, but just looking for something that warrants the confidence.

Re: GPT-5 is behind schedule

#208
One fundamental challenge to me is that if each training run because more and more expensive, the time it takes it to learn what works/doesn't work widens. Half a billion dollars for training a model is already nuts, but if it takes 100 iterations to perfect it, you've cumulatively spent 50 billion dollars... Smaller models may actually be where rapid innovation continues simply because of tighter feedback loops. O3 may be an example of this.

Re: GPT-5 is behind schedule

#209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>GPT-5 is called GPT-4o This is the first I have heard of this in particular. Do you know of any article or source for more on the efforts to train GPT 5 and the decision to call it GPT 4o?

I think my biggest pet peeve is when someone shares an insight which is unmistakably based on intuition, inference, critical thinking, etc (all mental faculties we are allowed to use to come to conclusions in the face of information asymmetry btw) ...and then gets hit deadpan with the good old "Source?", like it's some sort of gotcha. I think people have started to confuse "making logical conclusions without perfect…

I think it's okay to make logical conclusions but you must base them in evidence, not just suppositions. Intuition is a good start to begin generating hypothesis, but it doesn't render conclusions. I interpreted the GP asking for sources as "can you give me some evidence that would help me reach the same conclusions you've reached". I think that's much preferable to just accepting random things people say at face value.

Re: GPT-5 is behind schedule

#210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think my biggest pet peeve is when someone shares an insight which is unmistakably based on intuition, inference, critical thinking, etc (all mental faculties we are allowed to use to come to conclusions in the face of information asymmetry btw) ...and then gets hit deadpan with the good old "Source?", like it's some sort of gotcha. I think people have started to confuse "making logical conclusions without perfect…

It doesn't even look like 4o is scaled up parameter wise from 4 and was released closer in time than either 3 or 4 were from their predecessors at a time where the scaling required for these next gen iterations has only gotten more difficult. Critical thinking ? Lol it's just blind speculation.

If you disagree with their reasoning then you explain that.

You don't do this passive aggressive "source???" thing.

It's a bit like starting a Slack conversation with "Hi?": we all know you have a secondary objective, but now you're inserting an extra turn of phrase into the mix

Post reply on HN