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

631–640 of 1001 posts

Re: GPT-5 is behind schedule

#631

Post by delusional »

brookst wrote: post #483
stingraycharles wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me the problem is that you always need to double-check this particular type of expert, as it can be confidently wrong about pretty much any topic. It's useful as a starting point, not as a definitive expert answer.

What human experts do you blindly trust without double checking?

Most of them. Are you constantly doing validation studies for every piece of information you take in? If the independent experts tell me that a new car is safe to drive, then I trust them.

Re: GPT-5 is behind schedule

#632

Post by ryukoposting »

SamPatt wrote: post #415

I'm sure the debate over the definition of AGI is important and will continue for a while, but... I can't care about it anymore. Between Perplexity searching and summarizing, Claude explaining, and qwen (and other tools) coding, I'm already as happy as can be with whatever you want to call this level of intelligence. Just today I used a completely local AI research tool, based on Ollama. It worked great. Maybe it won…

At this point, most conceivable beneficial use cases for LLMs have been covered. If the economics of AI tech were aligned with making a good product that people want and/or need, we'd basically take everything we have at this point and make it lighter, smaller, and faster. I doubt that's what will happen.

Re: GPT-5 is behind schedule

#633

Post by airstrike »

denysvitali wrote: post #221
glenstein wrote: post #191

The lack of tech literacy in this article is a bit concerning: >Some researchers take this so seriously they won’t work on planes, coffee shops or anyplace where someone could peer over their shoulder and catch a glimpse of their work. I'm almost certain that originally this was meant to be a reference to public wifi networks, as planes and coffee shops are often the frequently cited prototypical examples. They made…

A lot of things in this article don't make any sense. I'm surprised this was even upvoted.

I think it's upvoted because people feel it's a relevant conversation to have, even if TFA is lame

Re: GPT-5 is behind schedule

#634

Post by delusional »

atonse wrote: post #457
SamPatt wrote: post #415

I'm sure the debate over the definition of AGI is important and will continue for a while, but... I can't care about it anymore. Between Perplexity searching and summarizing, Claude explaining, and qwen (and other tools) coding, I'm already as happy as can be with whatever you want to call this level of intelligence. Just today I used a completely local AI research tool, based on Ollama. It worked great. Maybe it won…

Same here. The ability to “talk to an expert” about any topic I’m curious about and ask very specific questions has been invaluable to me. It reminds me of being a kid and asking my grandpa a million questions, like how light bulbs worked, or what was inside his radio, or how do we have day and night. And before anyone talks about accuracy or hallucinations, these conversations usually are treated as starting off poi…

> And most of those resulted in google searches to verify the information. But I literally could never do this before.

Could you elaborate on this? What happened before when you had that type of questions? What was stopping you from tamping "911 emergency indian reservation" into google and learning that the "Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation" has their own 911 dispatch?

In my youth, before the internet was everywhere, we were taught that we could always ask the nearest librarian and that they would help us find some useful information. The information was all there, in books, the challenge was to know which books to read. As I got older, and Google started to become more available, we were taught how to filter out bad information. The challenge shifted from finding information into how not to find misinformation.

When I hear what you say here, I'm reminded of that shift. There doesn't seem to be any fundamental change there, expect may that it makes it harder not to find misinformation by obscuring the source of the information, which I was taught was an important indicator of its legitimacy.

Re: GPT-5 is behind schedule

#635

Post by stravant »

zeroonetwothree wrote: post #515
stravant wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree because AI only has to get good enough at doing a single thing: AI research. From there things will probably go very fast. Self driving cars can't design themselves, once AI gets good enough it can

It’s possible (maybe even likely) that “AI research” is “AGI-hard” in that any intelligence that can do it is already an AGI.

It's also possible it isn't AGI hard and all you need is the ability to experiment with code along with a bit of agentic behavior.

An AI doesn't need embodiment, understanding of physics / nature, or a lot of other things. It just needs to analyze and experiment with algorithms and get us that next 100x in effective compute.

The LLMs are missing enough of the spark of creativity for this to work yet but that could be right around the corner.

Re: GPT-5 is behind schedule

#636

Post by das_keyboard »

FergusArgyll wrote: post #557
superultra wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I give AI a “water cooler chat” level of veracity, which means it’s about as true as chatting with a coworker at a water cooler when that used to happen. Which is to say if I just need to file the information away as a “huh” it’s fine, but if I need to act on it or cite it, I need to do deeper research.

Yes, so often I see/hear people asking "But how can you trust it?!" I'm asking it a question about social dynamics in the USSR, what's the worst thing that'll happen?! I'll get the wrong impression? What are people using this for? are you building a nuclear reactor where every mistake is catastrophic? Almost none of my interactions with LLMs "Matter", they are things I'm curious about, if 10 out of 100 things I learn…

If you don't care if it's correct or not you can also just make the stuff up. No need to pay for AI to do it for you.

Re: GPT-5 is behind schedule

#637

Post by spotplay »

CobrastanJorji wrote: post #495
brookst wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What human experts do you blindly trust without double checking?

Most human experts, when asked about their area of expertise, don't parrot what some guy said as joke on Reddit five years ago. Most lawyers, when you ask them to write a brief, will cite only real cases.

"Most" is the key word here. In my experience that's also the case for LLMs.

Re: GPT-5 is behind schedule

#638

Post by ithadtobe119 »

atonse wrote: post #457
SamPatt wrote: post #415

I'm sure the debate over the definition of AGI is important and will continue for a while, but... I can't care about it anymore. Between Perplexity searching and summarizing, Claude explaining, and qwen (and other tools) coding, I'm already as happy as can be with whatever you want to call this level of intelligence. Just today I used a completely local AI research tool, based on Ollama. It worked great. Maybe it won…

Same here. The ability to “talk to an expert” about any topic I’m curious about and ask very specific questions has been invaluable to me. It reminds me of being a kid and asking my grandpa a million questions, like how light bulbs worked, or what was inside his radio, or how do we have day and night. And before anyone talks about accuracy or hallucinations, these conversations usually are treated as starting off poi…

(throwaway account because of what I'm about to say, but it needs to be said)

While my main use case for LLMs is coding just like most people here, there are lots of areas that are being ignored.

Did you know llama 3.X models have been trained as psychotherapists? It's been invaluable to dump and discuss feelings with it in ways I wouldn't trust any regular person. When real therapists also cost more than what people can afford (and will have you committed if you say the wrong thing), this ends up being a very good option.

And you know how escorts are traditionally known as therapists lite? Yeah, it works in reverse too. The main use case most are sleeping on is, well, emotional porn and erotic role play. Let me explain.

My generation (i.e. Z) doesn't do drugs, we don't drink, we don't go out. Why? Because we can hang on discord, play games, scroll tiktok and goon to our heart's content. 60% of gen Z men are single, 30% women. The loneliness epidemic hit hard along with covid. It's basically a match made in heaven for LLMs that can pretend to love you, like everything about you, ask you about your day, and of course, can sext on a superhuman level. When you're lonely enough, the fact that it's all just simulated doesn't matter one bit.

It's so interesting that the porn industry is usually on the forefront of innovation, adopting blueray and hddvd and whatnot before anyone else, but they're largely asleep on this and so is everyone else who doesn't want to touch of it with a 10ft pole. Well except maybe c.ai to some extent. The business case is there and it's a wide open market that OAI, Anthropic, Google and the rest won't ever stoop down to themselves, so the bar for entry is far lower.

Right now the best experience is known to be heading over to r/locallama by doing it yourself, but there's millions to be made for someone who improves it and figures out a platform to sell it on in the next few years. It can be done well enough with existing properly tuned, open weight, apache licensed LLMs and progress isn't stopping.

Re: GPT-5 is behind schedule

#639

Post by Roark66 »

swiftcoder wrote: post #627
reissbaker wrote: post #625

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Earlier in this thread, people mention the counterpoint to this: they Google the information from the LLM and do more reading. It's an excellent starting point for researching a topic: you can't trust everything it says, but if you don't know where to start, it will very likely get you to a good place to start researching. Similarly, while you can't fully trust everything a journalist says, it's obviously better to h…

> they Google the information from the LLM and do more reading The runway on this one seems to be running out fast - how long before all the google results are also non-expert opinions regurgitated by LLMs?

The way I see it they have been like that for at last a decade. Of course before the transformers revolution these were generated in a more crude way, but still the end result is 99% of Google results for any topic have been trash for me since early 200x.

Google has given up on fighting the SEO crowd long time ago. I worry they give up on the entire idea of search and will just serve answers from their LLM.

Re: GPT-5 is behind schedule

#640

Post by netdevphoenix »

atonse wrote: post #457
SamPatt wrote: post #415

I'm sure the debate over the definition of AGI is important and will continue for a while, but... I can't care about it anymore. Between Perplexity searching and summarizing, Claude explaining, and qwen (and other tools) coding, I'm already as happy as can be with whatever you want to call this level of intelligence. Just today I used a completely local AI research tool, based on Ollama. It worked great. Maybe it won…

Same here. The ability to “talk to an expert” about any topic I’m curious about and ask very specific questions has been invaluable to me. It reminds me of being a kid and asking my grandpa a million questions, like how light bulbs worked, or what was inside his radio, or how do we have day and night. And before anyone talks about accuracy or hallucinations, these conversations usually are treated as starting off poi…

> The ability to “talk to an expert” about any topic I’m curious about and ask very specific questions has been invaluable to me.

It is dangerous to assume that LLMs are experts on any topic. With or without quotes. You are getting a super fast journalist intern with a huge memory but inability to reason critically, lacking understanding about anything and huge unreliability when it comes to answering questions (you can get completely different answers to the same question depending on how you answer it and sometimes even the same question can get you different answers). LLMs are very useful and are a true game changer. But calling that expertise is a disservice to the true experts.

Post reply on HN