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

191–200 of 766 posts

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

#191

Post by imiric »

pbiggar wrote: post #103

I've switched over to https://thaura.ai , which is working on being a more ethical AI. A side effect I hadn't realized is missing the drama over the latest OpenAI changes.

What a bizarre product.

Weirdly political message and ethnic branding. I suppose "ethical AI" means models tuned to their biases instead of "Big Tech AI" biases. Or probably just a proxy to an existing API with a custom system prompt.

The least they could've done is check their generated slop images for typos ("STOP GENCCIDE" on the Plans page).

The whole thing reeks of the usual "AI" scam site. At best, it's profiting off of a difficult political situation. Given the links in your profile, you should be ashamed of doing the same and supporting this garbage.

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

#192

Post by Y_Y »

porridgeraisin wrote: post #148
binary132 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 complexi…

A citation would be a link to an authoritative source. Just because some unknown person claims it's obvious that's not sufficient for some of us.

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

#193

Post by Bolwin »

bonesss wrote: post #151
sethops1 wrote: post #47

Is anyone else tired of chat bots? Really doesn't feel like typing a conversation every interaction is the future of technology.

Speech to text makes it feel more futuristic. As does reflecting that Picard had to explain to Computer every, single, time that he wanted his Earl Grey tea ‘hot’. We knew what was coming.

I don't speak any faster than I type, despite what the transcription companies claim

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

#194

Post by ipsum2 »

tedsanders wrote: post #184
ipsum2 wrote: post #95

I've been using GPT-5.1-thinking for the last week or so, it's been horrendous. It does not spend as much time thinking as GPT-5 does, and the results are significantly worse (e.g. obvious mistakes) and less technical. I suspect this is to save on inference compute. I've temporarily switched back to o3, thankfully that model is still in the switcher. edit: s/month/week

Not possible. GPT-5.1 didn’t exist a month ago. I helped train it.

Double checked when the model started getting worse, and realized I was exaggerating a little bit on the timeframe. November 5th is when it got worse for me. (1 week in AI feels like a month..)

Was there a (hidden) rollout for people using GPT-5-thinking? If not, I have been entirely mistaken.

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

#195

Post by [deleted] »

plufz wrote: post #179
Dilettante_ wrote: post #170

>GPT‑5.1 Thinking’s responses are also clearer, with less jargon and fewer undefined terms Oh yeah that's what I want when asking a technical question! Please talk down to me, call a spade an earth-pokey-stick and don't ever use a phrase or concept I don't know because when I come face-to-face with something I don't know yet I feel deep insecurity and dread instead of seeing an opportunity to learn! But I assume thei…

I have added a ”language-and-tone.md” in my coding agents docs to make them use less unnecessary jargon and filler words. For me this change sounds good, I like my token count low and my agents language short and succinct. I get what you mean, but I think ai text is often overfilled with filler jargon. Example from my file: ### Mistake: Using industry jargon unnecessarily *Bad:* > Leverages containerization technolog…

[deleted]

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

#196

Post by [deleted] »

daveguy wrote: post #178
andy99 wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty sure most of the current problems we see re drug use are a direct result of the nanny state trying to tell people how to live their lives. Forcing your views on people doesn’t work and has lots of negative consequences.

Okay, I'm intrigued. How in the fuck could the "nanny state" cause people to abuse heroin? Is there a reason other than "just cause it's my ideology"?

[deleted]

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

#197

Post by kristianp »

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…

I think there's a lot of similarity between the conversationalness of Claude and ChatGPT. They are both sycophantic. So this release focuses on the conversational style,it doesn't mean OpenAI has lost the technical market. People a reading a lot into a point-release.

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

#198

Post by cess11 »

cregaleus wrote: post #160
cess11 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you sure about that? "The share of Technical Help declined from 12% from all usage in July 2024 to around 5% a year later – this may be because the use of LLMs for programming has grown very rapidly through the API (outside of ChatGPT), for AI assistance in code editing and for autonomous programming agents (e.g. Codex)." Looks like people moving to the API had a rather small effect. "[T]he three most common Chat…

gpt-5.1 is a model. It is not an application, like ChatGPT. I didn't say that personal requests were 0% of ChatGPT usage. If we are talking about a new model release I want to talk about models, not applications. The number of input tokens that OpenAI models are processing accross all delivery methods (OpenAI's own APIs, Azure) dwarf the number of input tokens that are coming from people asking the ChatGPT app for pe…

How many of those eight hundred million people are mainly API users, according to your sources?

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

#199

Post by karianna »

nikkwong wrote: post #158
93po wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Food should only be for sustenance, not emotional support. We should only sell brown rice and beans, no more Oreos.

The point the OP is making is that LLMs are not reliably able to provide safe and effective emotional support as has been outlined by recent cases. We're in uncharted territory and before LLMs become emotional companions for people, we should better understand what the risks and tradeoffs are.

I wonder if statistically (hand waving here, I’m so not an expert in this field) the SOTA models do as much or as little harm as their human counterparts in terms of providing safe and effective emotional support. Totally agree we should better understand the risks and trade offs but I wouldn’t be super surprised if they are statistically no worse than us meat bags this kind of stuff.

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

#200

Post by spprashant »

tekacs wrote: post #28

I'm excited to see whether the instruction following improvements play out in the use of Codex. The biggest issue I'e seen _by far_ with using GPT models for coding has been their inability to follow instructions... and also their tendency to duplicate-act on messages from up-thread instead of acting on what you just asked for.

I think thats part of the issue I have with it constantly.

Let's say I am solving a problem. I suggest strategy Alpha, a few prompts later I realize this is not going to work. So I suggest strategy Bravo, but for whatever reason it will hold on to ideas from A and the output is a mix of the two. Even if I say forget about Alpha we don't want anything to do that, there will be certain pieces which only makes sense with Alpha, in the Bravo solution. I usually just start with a new chat at that point and hope the model is not relying on previous chat context.

This is a hard problem to solve because its hard to communicate our internal compartmentalization to a remote model.

Post reply on HN