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

GPT-5

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 1001 posts

Re: GPT-5

#281

Post by Topfi »

> 400,000 context window

> 128,000 max output tokens

> Input $1.25

> Output $10.00

Source: https://platform.openai.com/docs/models/gpt-5

If this performs well in independent needle-in-haystack and adherence evaluations, this pricing with this context window alone would make GPT-5 extremely competitive with Gemini 2.5 Pro and Claude Opus 4.1, even if the output isn't a significant improvement over o3. If the output quality ends up on-par or better than the two major competitors, that'd be truly a massive leap forward for OpenAI, mini and nano maybe even more so.

Re: GPT-5

#282

Post by techpineapple »

Interesting readign the progress.openai.com sample prompts https://progress.openai.com/?prompt=6

I would say GPT-5 reads more scientific and structured, but GPT-4 more human and even useful. For the prompt:

Is uncooked meat actually unsafe to eat? How likely is someone to get food poisoning if the meat isn’t cooked?

GPT-4 makes the assumption you might want to know safe food temperatures, and GPT-5 doesn't. Really hard to say which is "better", but GPT-4 seems more useful to every day folks, but maybe GPT-5 for the scientific community?

Then interesting that on ChatGPT vibe check website "Dan's Mom" is the only one who says it's a game changer.

Re: GPT-5

#283

Post by some-guy »

minimaxir wrote: post #41

The marketing copy and the current livestream appear tautological: "it's better because it's better." Not much explanation yet why GPT-5 warrants a major version bump. As usual, the model (and potentially OpenAI as a whole) will depend on output vibe checks.

As someone who tries to push the limits of hard coding tasks (mainly refactoring old codebases) to LLMs with not much improvement since the last round of models, I'm finding that we are hitting the reduction of rate of improvement on the S-curve of quality. Obviously getting the same quality cheaper would be huge, but the quality of the output day to day isn't noticeable to me.

Re: GPT-5

#286

Post by 2StepsOutOfLine »

kybernetikos wrote: post #184

ChatGPT5 in this demo: > For an airplane wing (airfoil), the top surface is curved and the bottom is flatter. When the wing moves forward: > * Air over the top has to travel farther in the same amount of time -> it moves faster -> pressure on the top decreases. > * Air underneath moves slower -> pressure underneath is higher > * The presure difference creates an upward force - lift Isn't that explanation of why wings…

During the demo they quickly shuffled off of, the air flow lines completely broke. It was just a few dots moving left to right, changing the angle of the surface showed no visual difference in airflow.

Re: GPT-5

#287

Post by on_the_train »

kybernetikos wrote: post #184

ChatGPT5 in this demo: > For an airplane wing (airfoil), the top surface is curved and the bottom is flatter. When the wing moves forward: > * Air over the top has to travel farther in the same amount of time -> it moves faster -> pressure on the top decreases. > * Air underneath moves slower -> pressure underneath is higher > * The presure difference creates an upward force - lift Isn't that explanation of why wings…

It's a misconception that almost everyone does though. I recently even saw it being being taught in a zeppelin museum!

Re: GPT-5

#290

Post by jcgrillo »

WD-42 wrote: post #219
minimaxir wrote: post #41

The marketing copy and the current livestream appear tautological: "it's better because it's better." Not much explanation yet why GPT-5 warrants a major version bump. As usual, the model (and potentially OpenAI as a whole) will depend on output vibe checks.

It has the last ~6 months worth of flavor of the month Javascript libraries in it's training set now, so it's "better at coding". How is this sustainable.

Vast quantities of extremely dumb money
Post reply on HN