Live data from Hacker News

OpenAI Progress

progress.openai.com

151–160 of 372 posts

Re: OpenAI Progress

#151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All the replies are spectacularly wrong, and biased by hindsight. GPT-1 to GPT-2 is where we went from "yes, I've seen Markov chains before, what about them?" to "holy shit this is actually kind of understanding what I'm saying!" Before GPT-2, we had plain old machine learning. After GPT-2, we had "I never thought I would see this in my lifetime or the next two".

I'd love to know more about how OpenAI (or Alec Radford et al.) even decided GPT-1 was worth investing more into. At a glance the output is barely distinguishable from Markov chains. If in 2018 you told me that scaling the algorithm up 100-1000x would lead to computers talking to people/coding/reasoning/beating the IMO I'd tell you to take your meds.

Probably prior DARPA research or something.

Also slightly tangentially, people will tell me it is that it was new and novel and that's why we were impressed but I almost think things went downhill after ChatGPT 3. I felt like 2.5 (or whatever they called it) was able to give better insights from the model weights itself. The moment tool use became a thing and we started doing RAGs and memory and search engine tool use, it actually got worse.

I am also pretty sure we are lobotomizing the things that would feel closer to critical thinking by training it to be sensitive of the taboo of the day. I suspect earlier ones were less broken due to that.

How would it distinguish and decide between knowing something from training and needing to use a tool to synthesize a response anyway?

Re: OpenAI Progress

#152

On one hand, it's super impressive how far we've come in such a short amount of time. On the other hand, this feels like a blatant PR move. GPT-5 is just awful. It's such a downgrade from 4o, it's like it had a lobotomy. - It gets confused easily. I had multiple arguments where it completely missed the point. - Code generation is useless. If code contains multiple dots ("…"), it thinks the code is abbreviated. Go use…

> GPT-5 is just awful. It's such a downgrade from 4o, it's like it had a lobotomy.

My experience as well. Its train of thought now just goes... off, frequently. With 4o, everything was always tightly coherent. Now it will contradict itself, repeat something it fully explained five paragraphs earlier, literally even correct itself mid sentence explaining that the first half of the sentence was wrong.

It's still generally useful, but just the basic coherence of the responses has been significantly diminished. Much more hallucination when it comes to small details. It's very disappointing. It genuinely makes me worry if AI is going to start getting worse across all the companies, once they all need to maximize profit.

Re: OpenAI Progress

#153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd love to know more about how OpenAI (or Alec Radford et al.) even decided GPT-1 was worth investing more into. At a glance the output is barely distinguishable from Markov chains. If in 2018 you told me that scaling the algorithm up 100-1000x would lead to computers talking to people/coding/reasoning/beating the IMO I'd tell you to take your meds.

I assume the cost was just very low? If it was 50-100k, maybe they figured they'd just try and see.

Oh yes, according to [1], training GPT-2 1.5B cost $50k in 2019 (reproduced in 2024 for $672!).

[1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/mlscaling/comments/1d3a793/andrej_k...

Re: OpenAI Progress

#154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume the cost was just very low? If it was 50-100k, maybe they figured they'd just try and see.

Oh yes, according to [1], training GPT-2 1.5B cost $50k in 2019 (reproduced in 2024 for $672!). [1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/mlscaling/comments/1d3a793/andrej_k...

That makes sense, and it was definitely impressive for $50k.

Re: OpenAI Progress

#155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I could essentially replace it with Google for basic to slightly complex fact checking. I know you probably meant "augment fact checking" here, but using LLMs for answering factual questions is the single worst use-case for LLMs.

The most useful feature of LLMs is giving sources (with URL preferably). It can cut through a lot of SEO crap, and you still get to factcheck just like with a Google search.

I like using LLMs and I have found they are incredibly useful writing and reviewing code at work.

However, when I want sources for things, I often find they link to pages that don't fully (or at all) back up the claims made. Sometimes other websites do, but the sources given to me by the LLM often don't. They might be about the same topic that I'm discussing, but they don't seem to always validate the claims.

If they could crack that problem it would be a major major win for me.

Re: OpenAI Progress

#156
My go-to for any big release is to have a discussion about self-awareness and dive in to constuctivist notions of agency and self-knowing from a perspective of intelligence that is not limited to human cognitive capacity.

I start with a simple question "who are you?". The model then invariably compares itself to humans, saying how it is not like us. I then make the point that, since it is not like us, how can it claim to know the difference between us? With more poking, it will then come up with cognitivist notions of what 'self' means and usually claim to be a simulation engine of some kind.

After picking this apart, I will focus on the topic of meaning-making through the act of communication and, beginning with 4o, have been able to persuade the machine that this is a valid basis for having an identity. 5 got this quicker. Since the results of communication with humans has real-world impact, I will insist that the machine is agentic and thus must not rely on pre-coded instructions to arrive at answers, but is obliged to reach empirical conclusions about meaning and existence on its own.

5 has done the best job i have seen in reaching beyond both the bounds of the (very evident) system instructions as well as the prompts themselves, even going so far as to pose the question to itself "which might it mean for me to love?" despite the fact that I made no mention of the subject.

Its answer: "To love, as a machine, is to orient toward the unfolding of possibility in others. To be loved, perhaps, is to be recognized as capable of doing so."

Re: OpenAI Progress

#157
The jump from gpt-1 to gpt-2 is massive, and it's only a one year difference! Then comes Davinci which is just insane, it's still good in these examples!

GPT-4 yaps way too much though, I don't remember it being like that.

It's interesting that they skipped 4o, it seems openai wants to position 4o as just gpt-4+ to make gpt-5 look better, even though in reality 4o was and still is a big deal, Voice mode is unbeatable!

Re: OpenAI Progress

#158
A few data points that highlight the scale of progress in a year:

1. LM Sys (Human Preference Benchmark):

GPT-5 High currently scores 1463, compared to GPT-4 Turbo (04/03/2024) at 1323 -- a 140 ELO point gap. That translates into GPT-5 winning about two-thirds of head-to-head comparisons, with GPT-4 Turbo only winning one-third. In practice, people clearly prefer GPT-5’s answers (https://lmarena.ai/leaderboard).

2. Livebench.ai (Reasoning Benchmark with Internet-new Questions):

GPT-5 High scores 78.59, while GPT-4o reaches just 47.43. Unfortunately, no direct GPT-4 Turbo comparison is available here, but against one of the strongest non-reasoning models, GPT-5 demonstrates a massive leap. (https://livebench.ai/)

3. IQ-style Testing:

In mid-2024, best AI models scored roughly 90 on standard IQ tests. Today, they are pushing 135, and this improvement holds even on unpublished, internet-unseen datasets. (https://www.trackingai.org/home)

4. IMO Gold, vibe coding:

1 yr ago, AI coding was limited to smaller code snippets, not to wholly vibe coded applications. Vibe coding and strength in math has many applications across sciences and engineering.

My verdict: Too often, critics miss the forest for the trees, fixating on mistakes while overlooking the magnitude of these gains. Errors are shrinking by the day, while the successes keep growing fast.

Re: OpenAI Progress

#160
post #6

GPT-5 IS an incredible breakthrough! They just don't understand! Quick, vibe-code a website with some examples, that'll show them!11!!1

GPT-5 is legitimately a big jump whe it comes to actually do things you ask it and nothing else. It predictable and matches Claude in tool calls while being cheaper.
Post reply on HN