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

GPT-5.1: A smarter, more conversational ChatGPT

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 766 posts

Re: GPT-5.1: A smarter, more conversational ChatGPT

#141

Post by airstrike »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #129
nlh wrote: post #38

What's remarkable to me is how deep OpenAI is going on "ChatGPT as communication partner / chatbot", as opposed to Anthropic's approach of "Claude as the best coding tool / professional AI for spreadsheets, etc.". I know this is marketing at play and OpenAI has plenty of resources developed to advancing their frontier models, but it's starting to really come into view that OpenAI wants to replace Google and be the de…

OpenAI said that only ~4% of generated tokens are for programming. ChatGPT is overwhelmingly, unambiguously, a "regular people" product.

I mean, yes, but also because it's not as good as Claude today. Bit of a self fulfilling prophecy and they seem to be measuring the wrong thing.

4% of their tokens or total tokens in the market?

Re: GPT-5.1: A smarter, more conversational ChatGPT

#142

Post by simonw »

Someone1234 wrote: post #30

Unfortunately no word on "Thinking Mini" getting fixed. Before GPT-5 was released it used to be a perfect compromise between a "dumb" non-Thinking model and a SLOW Thinking model. However, something went badly wrong within the GPT-5 release cycle, and today it is exactly the same speed (or SLOWER) than their Thinking model even with Extended Thinking enabled, making it completely pointless. In essence Thinking Mini e…

Which model are you talking about here?

Re: GPT-5.1: A smarter, more conversational ChatGPT

#143

Post by water9 »

andai wrote: post #51
nathan_compton wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can just tell the AI to not be warm and it will remember. My ChatGPT used the phrase "turn it up to eleven" and I told it never to speak in that manner ever again and its been very robotic ever since.

I system-prompted all my LLMs "Don't use cliches or stereotypical language." and they like me a lot less now.

They really like to blow sunshine up your ass don’t they? I have to do the same type of stuff. It’s like have to assure that I’m a big boy and I can handle mature content like programming in C

Re: GPT-5.1: A smarter, more conversational ChatGPT

#144

Post by water9 »

cowpig wrote: post #109
sofixa wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be pretty dystopian when we get to the point where ChatGPT pushed (unannounced) advertisements to those people (the ones forming a parasocial relationship with it). Imagine someone complaining they're depressed and ChatGPT proposing doing XYZ activity which is actually a disguised ad. Other than such scenarios, that "engagement" would be just useless and actually costing them more money than it makes

Do you have reason to believe they are not doing this already?

No, otherwise Sam Altman wouldn’t have had a outburst about revenue. They know that they have this amazing system, but they haven’t quite figured out how to monetize it yet.

Re: GPT-5.1: A smarter, more conversational ChatGPT

#145

Post by GaggiX »

9cb14c1ec0 wrote: post #132
Workaccount2 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OpenAI said that only ~4% of generated tokens are for programming. ChatGPT is overwhelmingly, unambiguously, a "regular people" product.

Yes, just look at the stats on OpenRouter. OpenAI has almost totally lost the programming market.

OpenRouter probably doesn't mean much given that you can use the OpenAI API directly with the openai library that people use for OpenRouter too.

Re: GPT-5.1: A smarter, more conversational ChatGPT

#146

Post by simonw »

cowpig wrote: post #62
moi2388 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Source? You can opt out of training, and delete history, do they keep the prompts somehow?!

1. Anthropic pushed a change to their terms where now I have to opt out or my data will be retained for 5 years and trained on. They have shown that they will change their terms, so I cannot trust them. 2. OpenAI is run by someone who already shows he will go to great lengths to deceive and cannot be trusted, and are embroiled in a battle with the New York Times that is "forcing them" to retain all user prompts. Tota…

The NYT situation concerning data retention was resolved a few weeks ago: https://www.engadget.com/ai/openai-no-longer-has-to-preserve...

> Federal judge Ona T. Wang filed a new order on October 9 that frees OpenAI of an obligation to "preserve and segregate all output log data that would otherwise be deleted on a going forward basis." [...]

> The judge in the case said that any chat logs already saved under the previous order would still be accessible and that OpenAI is required to hold on to any data related to ChatGPT accounts that have been flagged by the NYT.

EDIT: OK looks like I'd missed the news from today at https://openai.com/index/fighting-nyt-user-privacy-invasion/ and discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45900370

Re: GPT-5.1: A smarter, more conversational ChatGPT

#147

Post by jstummbillig »

> We’re bringing both GPT‑5.1 Instant and GPT‑5.1 Thinking to the API later this week. GPT‑5.1 Instant will be added as gpt-5.1-chat-latest, and GPT‑5.1 Thinking will be released as GPT‑5.1 in the API, both with adaptive reasoning.

Sooo...

GPT‑5.1 Instant gpt-5.1-chat-latest

GPT‑5.1 Thinking GPT‑5.1

I mean. The shitty naming has to be a pathology or some sort of joke. You can't put thought to that, come up with and think "yeah, absolutely, let's go with that!"

Re: GPT-5.1: A smarter, more conversational ChatGPT

#148

Post by porridgeraisin »

binary132 wrote: post #77
LeifCarrotson wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

10 pages about the question means that the subsequent answer is more likely to be correct. That's why they repeat themselves.

citation needed

First of all, consider asking "why's that?" if you don't know what is a fairly basic fact, no need to go all reddit-pretentious "citation needed" as if we are deeply and knowledgeably discussing some niche detail and came across a sudden surprising fact.

Anyways, a nice way to understand it is that the LLM needs to "compute" the answer to the question A or B. Some questions need more compute to answer (think complexity theory). The only way an LLM can do "more compute" is by outputting more tokens. This is because each token takes a fixed amount of compute to generate - the network is static. So, if you encourage it to output more and more tokens, you're giving it the opportunity to solve harder problems. Apart from humans encouraging this via RLHF, it was also found (in deepseekmath paper) that RL+GRPO on math problems automatically encourages this (increases sequence length).

From a marketing perspective, this is anthropomorphized as reasoning.

From a UX perspective, they can hide this behind thinking... ellipses. I think GPT-5 on chatgpt does this.

Post reply on HN