Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

GPT-5 is behind schedule

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 1001 posts

Re: GPT-5 is behind schedule

#341

Post by resters »

coldtea wrote: post #267
ComplexSystems wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"There is no evidence that LLMs are the roadmap to AGI." - There's plenty of evidence. What do you think the last few years have been all about? Hell, GPT-4 would already have qualified as AGI about a decade ago.

> What do you think the last few years have been all about? Next token language-based predictors with no more intelligence than brute force GIGO which parrot existing human intelligence captured as text/audio and fed in the form of input data. 4o agrees: "What you are describing is a language model or next-token predictor that operates solely as a computational system without inherent intelligence or understanding. T…

This comment isn't false but it's very naive.

Re: GPT-5 is behind schedule

#342

Post by wongarsu »

danpalmer wrote: post #320
foolfoolz wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AGI will arrive like self driving cars. it’s not that you will wake up one day and we have it. cars gained auto-braking, parallel parking, cruise control assist. and over a long time you get to something like waymo, which still is location dependent. i think AGI will take decades but sooner will be some special cases that are effectively the same

Interesting idea. The concept of The Singularity would seem to go against this, but I do feel that seems unlikely and that a gradual transition is more likely. However, is that AGI, or is it just ubiquitous AI? I’d agree that, like self driving cars, we’re going to experience a decade or so transition into AI being everywhere. But is it AGI when we get there? I think it’ll be many different systems each providing an…

The idea of the singularity presumes that running the AGI is either free or trivially cheap compared to what it can do, so we are fine expending compute to let the AGI improve itself. That may eventually be true, but it's unlikely to be true for the first generation of AGI.

The first AGI will be a research project that's completely uneconomical to run for actual tasks because humans will just be orders of magnitude cheaper. Over time humans will improve it and make it cheaper, until we reach some tipping point where letting the AGI improve itself is more cost effective than paying humans to do it

Re: GPT-5 is behind schedule

#343

Post by teleforce »

foolfoolz wrote: post #294
missedthecue wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do we know LLMs are the path to AGI? If they're not, we'll just end up with some neat but eye wateringly expensive LLMs.

AGI will arrive like self driving cars. it’s not that you will wake up one day and we have it. cars gained auto-braking, parallel parking, cruise control assist. and over a long time you get to something like waymo, which still is location dependent. i think AGI will take decades but sooner will be some special cases that are effectively the same

> AGI will arrive like self driving cars

The statement is promising as the earth will dissapear sometimes in the future. Actually the earth will dissapear has more bearing than that.

Re: GPT-5 is behind schedule

#344

Post by EGreg »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #333
danpalmer wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting idea. The concept of The Singularity would seem to go against this, but I do feel that seems unlikely and that a gradual transition is more likely. However, is that AGI, or is it just ubiquitous AI? I’d agree that, like self driving cars, we’re going to experience a decade or so transition into AI being everywhere. But is it AGI when we get there? I think it’ll be many different systems each providing an…

The Singularity is caused by AI being able to design better AI. There's probably some AI startup trying to work on this at the moment, but I don't think any of the big boys are working on how to get an LLM to design a better LLM. I still like the analogy of this being a really smart lawn mower, and we're expecting it to suddenly be able to do the laundry because it gets so smart at mowing the lawn. I think LLMs are g…

I think this whole “AGI” thing is so badly defined that we may as well say we already have it. It already passes the Turing test and does well on tons of subjects.

What we can start to build now is agents and integrations. Building blocks like panel of experts agents gaming things out, exploring space in a Monte Carlo Tree Search way, and remembering what works.

Robots are only constrained by mechanical servos now. When they can do something, they’ll be able to do everything. It will happen gradually then all at once. Because all the tasks (cooking, running errands) are trivial for LLMs. Only moving the limbs and navigating the terrain safely is hard. That’s the only thing left before robots do all the jobs!

Re: GPT-5 is behind schedule

#345

Post by lazypenguin »

skinner_ wrote: post #245
lm28469 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How can some people think it’s amazing and has completely changed how they work, while for me it makes mistakes that should a static analyser would catch? There are a lot of code monkeys working on boilerplate code, these people used to rely on stack overflow and now that chatgpt is here it's a huge improvement for them If you work on anything remotely complex or which hasn't been solved 10 times on stack overflow…

I work on very complex problems. Some of my solutions have small, standard substeps that now I can reliably outsource to ChatGPT. Here are a few just from last week: - write cvxpy code to find the chromatic number of a graph, and an optimal coloring, given its adjecency matrix. - given an adjecency matrix write numpy code that enumerates all triangle-free vertex subsets. - please port this old code from tensorflow to…

To be honest, these don’t sound like hard problems. These sound like they have very specific answers that I might find in the more specialized stackoverflow sections. These are also the kind of questions (not in this domain) that I’ve found yield the best results from LLMs.

In comparison asking an LLM a more project specific question “this code has a race condition where is it” while including some code usually is a crapshoot and really depends if you were lucky enough to give it the right context anyway.

Re: GPT-5 is behind schedule

#346

Post by bhouston »

maxrmk wrote: post #336
overgard wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, those server farms don't pay for themselves.

sure, but once it's trained there isn't a running maintenance cost

Well if it takes a ton of memory/compute for inference because of its size, it may be cost prohibitive to run compared to the ROI it generates?

Re: GPT-5 is behind schedule

#347

Post by wongarsu »

maxrmk wrote: post #336
overgard wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, those server farms don't pay for themselves.

sure, but once it's trained there isn't a running maintenance cost

If you offer an API you need to dedicate servers to it that keep the model loaded in GPU memory. Unless you don't care about latency at all.

Though I wouldn't be surprised if the bigger reason is the PR cost of releasing with an exciting name but unexciting results. The press would immediately declare the end of the AI growth curve

Re: GPT-5 is behind schedule

#348

Post by ulfw »

dkobia wrote: post #232
t_serpico wrote: post #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…

AGI is the Sisyphean task of our age. We’ll push this boulder up the mountain because we have to, even if it kills us.

Why? Nobody asked us if we want this. Nobody has a plan what to do with humanity when there is AGI

Re: GPT-5 is behind schedule

#349

Post by bobxmax »

achierius wrote: post #176
bobxmax wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All frontier labs are now employing LVMs or LLMs. But that's my point is you won't see the fruits of it this early.

That's the point being made. It's transformed robotics research, yes, but it both remains to see whether it will have a truly transformative effect on the field as experienced by people outside academia (I think this is quite probable) and more pointedly when .

I think it's impossible to spend a lot of time with these models without believing robotics is fundamentally about to transform. Even the most sophisticated versions of robotic logic pre-LLM/VLM feel utterly trivial compared to what even rudimentary applications of these large models can accomplish.

Re: GPT-5 is behind schedule

#350

Post by tigershark »

energy123 wrote: post #241
anonzzzies wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We do the same (all requests go to o1, sonnet and gemini and we store the results for later to compare) automatically for our research: Claude always wins. Even with specific prompting on both platforms. Especially frontend it seems o1 really is terrible.

A new o1 was released on December 17th. Which one are you talking about

Exactly. The previous version of o1 did actually worse in the coding benchmarks, so I would expect it to be worse in real life scenarios. The new version released a few days ago on the other hand is better in the benchmarks, so it would seem strange that someone used it and is saying that it’s worse than Claude.
Post reply on HN