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

741–750 of 1001 posts

Re: GPT-5 is behind schedule

#741

Post by jaybna »

25% of the top 1000 websites are blocking OpenAI from crawling: https://originality.ai/ai-bot-blocking

I am betting hundreds of thousands, rising to millions more little sites, will start blocking/gating this year. AI companies might license from big sources (you can see the blocking percentage went down), but they will be missing the long tail, where a lot of great novel training data lives. And then the big sites will realize the money they got was trivial as agents start to crush their businesses.

Bill Gross correctly calls this phase of AI shoplifting. I call it the Napster-of-Everything (because I am old). I am also betting that the courts won't buy the "fair use" interpretation of scraping, given the revenues AI companies generate. That means a potential stalling of new models until some mechanism is worked out to pay knowledge creators. (And maybe nothing we know of now will work for media: https://om.co/2024/12/21/dark-musings-on-media-ai/)

Oh, and yes, I love generative AI and would be willing to pay 100x to access it...

P.S. Hope is not a strategy, but hoping something like ProRata.ai and/or TollBits can help make this self-sustainable for everyone in the chain

Re: GPT-5 is behind schedule

#742

Post by hengheng »

gizmo wrote: post #686
netdevphoenix wrote: post #640

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

People who are experts (PhD and 20 years of experience) often have very dumb opinions in their field of expertise. Experts make amateur mistakes too. Look at the books written by expert economists, expert psychologists, expert historians, expert philosophers, expert software engineers. Most books are not worth the paper they're written on, despite the authors being experts with decades of experience in their respecti…

My personal criterion for calling somebody an expert, or "educated", or a "scholar" is that they have any random area of expertise where they really know their shit.

And as a consequence, they know where that area of expertise ends. And they know what half-knowing something feels like compared to really knowing something. And thus, they will preface and qualify their statements.

LLMs don't do any of that. I don't know if they could, I do know it would be inconvenient for the sales pitch around them. But the people that I call experts distinguish themselves not by being right with their predictions a lot, but rather by qualifying their statements with the degree of uncertainty that they have.

And no "expert system" does that.

Re: GPT-5 is behind schedule

#743

Post by ben_w »

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.

Even the ability to talk to a university work placement student/intern in any topic is very useful, never mind true experts.

Even Google's indexing and Wikipedia opened up a huge quantity of low-hanging fruit for knowledge sharing; Even to the extent that LLMs must be treated with caution because the default mode is over-confident, and even to the extent one can call them a "blurry JPEG of the internet", LLMs likewise make available a lot of low-hanging fruit before we get to an AI that reasons more like we do from limited examples.

Re: GPT-5 is behind schedule

#744

Post by cardanome »

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…

In the not so distant past we already had a tool that allowed us to look up any question that came into our minds.

It was super fast and always provided you with sources. It never hallucinated. It was completely free except for some advertisement. You could build a whole career out of being good at using it.

It was a search engine. Young people might not remember but there was a time when Google wasn't shite but actually magic.

Re: GPT-5 is behind schedule

#745

Post by mycall »

uxhacker wrote: post #719
gizmo wrote: post #686

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People who are experts (PhD and 20 years of experience) often have very dumb opinions in their field of expertise. Experts make amateur mistakes too. Look at the books written by expert economists, expert psychologists, expert historians, expert philosophers, expert software engineers. Most books are not worth the paper they're written on, despite the authors being experts with decades of experience in their respecti…

A Call to expertise is actually a fallacy. This is because experts can be wrong. The scientific method relies on evidence and reproducible results, not authority alone. Edited to add a reference: see under Appeal to authority. https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/fallacies/

The fact is that in science, facts are only definitions and everything else is a theory which by definition is never 100% true.

Re: GPT-5 is behind schedule

#746

Post by cess11 »

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…

I've been "talking" quite a bit with Ollama models, they're often confidently wrong about Wikipedia level stuff and even if the system prompt is explicitly constrained in this regard. Usually I get Wikipedia as understood by a twelve year old with the self-confidence of adult Peter Thiel. If it isn't factually wrong, it's often subtly wrong in the way that a cursory glance at some web search results is unlikely to rectify.

It takes more time for me to verify the stuff they output than grabbing a book off Anna's Archive or my payed collections and looking something up immediately. I'd rather spend that time making notes than waiting for the LLM to respond and double checking it.

Re: GPT-5 is behind schedule

#747

Post by ben_w »

hengheng wrote: post #742
gizmo wrote: post #686

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People who are experts (PhD and 20 years of experience) often have very dumb opinions in their field of expertise. Experts make amateur mistakes too. Look at the books written by expert economists, expert psychologists, expert historians, expert philosophers, expert software engineers. Most books are not worth the paper they're written on, despite the authors being experts with decades of experience in their respecti…

My personal criterion for calling somebody an expert, or "educated", or a "scholar" is that they have any random area of expertise where they really know their shit. And as a consequence, they know where that area of expertise ends. And they know what half-knowing something feels like compared to really knowing something. And thus, they will preface and qualify their statements. LLMs don't do any of that. I don't kno…

> And as a consequence, they know where that area of expertise ends. And they know what half-knowing something feels like compared to really knowing something. And thus, they will preface and qualify their statements.

How do you count examples like Musk, then?

He is very cautious about rockets, and all the space science people I follow and hold in high regard, say he's actually a domain expert there. He regularly expectation-manages experimental SpaceX launches downward.

He's also very bold and brash about basically everything else; the majority of people I've seeing saying he's skilled in any other area have turned out to not themselves have any skills in those areas, while the people who do have expertise say he's talking nonsense at best and is taking wild safety risks at worst.

Re: GPT-5 is behind schedule

#748

Post by ben_w »

pera wrote: post #650
netdevphoenix wrote: post #640

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

It's scary to think that we are moving into this direction: I can see how in the next few years politicians and judges will use LLMs as neutral experts. And all in the hand of a few big tech corporations...

> I can see how in the next few years politicians and judges will use LLMs as neutral experts.

While also noting that "neutral" is not well-defined, I agree. They will be used as if they were.

Re: GPT-5 is behind schedule

#749

Post by ben_w »

cardanome wrote: post #744
atonse wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

In the not so distant past we already had a tool that allowed us to look up any question that came into our minds. It was super fast and always provided you with sources. It never hallucinated. It was completely free except for some advertisement. You could build a whole career out of being good at using it. It was a search engine. Young people might not remember but there was a time when Google wasn't shite but actu…

> we already had a tool that allowed us to look up any question that came into our minds … It never hallucinated. … It was a search engine.

Except for all the times the search results were wrong answers.

https://searchengineland.com/when-google-gets-it-wrong-direc...

Re: GPT-5 is behind schedule

#750

Post by aprilthird2021 »

weatherlite wrote: post #613
bloppe wrote: post #485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ya I think they probably will, but "the chatgpt company" is not worth 157B. It might not even be worth 1B.

Not worth 1B ? Come on man. I see them improving the tool enough for most people willing to pay 50$ a month for a subscription. And for most companies to be willing to pay 300$ per employee. It's perhaps not there yet but I'm sure they'll reach this amount of value for their offering. It remains to be seen what competition will do to the prices though.

The market of people willing to pay $50 a month for OAI vs $0/month for one of the open source LLAMA variants is not large enough to justify their current valuation, imo
Post reply on HN