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

421–430 of 766 posts

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

#421

Post by imiric »

pbiggar wrote: post #408
imiric wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 profiti…

I assure you it's not a scam. We work with them heavily at Tech for Palestine. Will send over your feedback, thanks! What would be helpful to assuage your fears? Would you like more technical info, or perhaps a description of the "biases" used?

Thank you for the candid reply, and I apologize for my hostile tone.

To be honest, I don't think there's anything you/they can do, other than heavily rebrand or shut the project down. I find the entire premise of a commercial product and company branding themselves in support of (or in opposition to) a political situation morally deplorable. It is taking advantage of a current conflict and people's political leanings for their own financial gain. It doesn't matter if the people behind it are directly involved in the conflict or not—it's a cheap marketing ploy.

It would be no different if the "Big Tech AI" companies they criticize promoted their products in support of Israel with Jewish-friendly branding. Biases are one thing, but basing your entire product on them is entirely different. It is tasteless regardless of which side does it.

This is the first I've heard of it, but your Tech for Palestine endeavour gives off similar vibes. I'm sure you mean well, but this is not the way to help people going through a difficult time.

But then again, I'm just a rando on the internet. Good luck.

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

#422

Post by saidchihabi »

sunaookami wrote: post #325
imiric wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 profiti…

Even the website design is 1:1 copied from Anthropic lol

Haha, yes, that's intentional. I used to use Claude every day and love their design, so I replicated it. But what I don't love about Claude is it taking money from Zionist VC and collaborating with pretty much anybody who is willing to make them a buck. Again, our whole point here is not to say their design sucks—it's their political stance and company mission that sucks.

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

#423

Post by subscribed »

School-Cotton wrote: post #415
boredhedgehog wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disincentivizing something undesirable will not necessarily lead to better results, because it wrongly assumes that you can foresee all consequences of an action or inaction. Someone who now falls in love with an LLM might instead fall for some seductress who hurts him more. Someone who now receives bad mental health assistance might receive none whatsoever.

Your argument suggests that we shouldn’t ever make laws or policy of any kind, which is clearly wrong.

Your argument suggests that blanket drug prohibition is better than decriminalization and education.

Which is demonstrably false (see: US Prohibition ; Portugal)

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

#425

Post by subscribed »

pmarreck wrote: post #229
DonaldPShimoda wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is like arguing that we shouldn't try to regulate drugs because some people might "want" the heroin that ruins their lives. The existing "personalities" of LLMs are dangerous, full stop. They are trained to generate text with an air of authority and to tend to agree with anything you tell them. It is irresponsible to allow this to continue while not at least deliberately improving education around their use. Thi…

here’s something I noticed: If you yell at them (all caps, cursing them out, etc.), they perform worse , similar to a human. So if you believe that some degree of “personable answering” might contribute to better correctness, since some degree of disagreeable interaction seems to produce less correctness, then you might have to accept some personality.

Actually DeepSeek performs better for me in terms of prompt adherence.

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

#426

Post by exe34 »

jasonjmcghee wrote: post #79
danudey wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The target users for this behavior are the ones using GPT as a replacement for social interactions; these are the people who crashed out/broke down about the GPT5 changes as though their long-term romantic partner had dumped them out of nowhere and ghosted them. I get that those people were distraught/emotionally devastated/upset about the change, but I think that fact is reason enough not to revert that behavior. AI…

> and not on this sort of "I understand that must be very frustrating for you, let me see what I can do to resolve this" You're triggering me. Another type that are incredibly grating to me are the weird empty / therapist like follow-up questions that don't contribute to the conversation at all. The equivalent of like (just a contrived example), a discussion about the appropriate data structure for a problem and then…

"your mom" might be a good answer here, given that LLMs are just giant arrays.

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

#427

Post by pbalau »

> what romanian football player won the premier league

> The only Romanian football player to have won the English Premier League (as of 2025) is Florin Andone, but wait — actually, that’s incorrect; he never won the league.

> ...

> No Romanian footballer has ever won the Premier League (as of 2025).

Yes, this is what we needed, more "conversational" ChatGPT... Let alone the fact the answer is wrong.

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

#428

Post by saaaaaam »

falcor84 wrote: post #233
saaaaaam wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just cannot imagine myself sitting just “chatting away” with an AI. It makes me feel quite sick to even contemplate it. Another person I was talking to recently kept referring to ChatGPT as “she”. “She told me X”, “and I said to her…” Very very odd, and very worrying. As you say, a big education problem. The interesting thing is that a lot of these people are folk who are on the edges of digital literacy - people w…

As a counterpoint, I've been using my own PC since I was 6 and know reasonably well about the innards of LLMs and agentic AI, and absolutely love this ability to hold a conversation with an AI. Earlier today, procrastinating from work, I spent an hour and a half talking with it about the philosophy of religion and had a great time, learning a ton. Sometimes I do just want a quick response to get things done, but I fi…

I think chatting discursively is fine! For some people that’s a good way to learn (so long as you fact check). I’m talking about just mindless chatter “how’s your day?” and asking what can best be described as “meme questions”.

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

#429

Post by muixoozie »

boldlybold wrote: post #71

Just set it to the "Efficient" tone, let's hope there's less pedantic encouragement of the projects I'm tackling, and less emoji usage.

I wonder tone affects performance. It's something I'd like to think they surely benchmarked, but saw no mention of that

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

#430

Post by saaaaaam »

qwertytyyuu wrote: post #288
saaaaaam wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just cannot imagine myself sitting just “chatting away” with an AI. It makes me feel quite sick to even contemplate it. Another person I was talking to recently kept referring to ChatGPT as “she”. “She told me X”, “and I said to her…” Very very odd, and very worrying. As you say, a big education problem. The interesting thing is that a lot of these people are folk who are on the edges of digital literacy - people w…

is it that bad? I have a robot vacuum, i put googley eyes on it gave it a name, and now everyone in the house uses the name an uses he/him to refer to it.

No, wait, this is completely different! It’s almost obligatory to do that surely?
Post reply on HN