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

581–590 of 766 posts

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

#581

Post by jfoster »

TOMDM wrote: post #345
dragonwriter wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All the examples of "warmer" generations show that OpenAI's definition of warmer is synonymous with sycophantic, which is a surprise given all the criticism against that particular aspect of ChatGPT. Have you considered that “all that criticism” may come from a relatively homogenous, narrow slice of the market that is not representative of the overall market preference? I suspect a lot of people who are from a very…

I'll be honest, I like the way Claude defaults to relentless positivity and affirmation. It is pleasant to talk to. That said I also don't think the sycophancy in LLM's is a positive trend. I don't push back against it because it's not pleasant, I push back against it because I think the 24/7 "You're absolutely right!" machine is deeply unhealthy. Some people are especially susceptible and get one shot by it, some pe…

The sycophancy makes LLMs useless if you want to use them to help you understand the world objectively.

Equally bad is when they push an opinion strongly (usually on a controversial topic) without being able to justify it well.

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

#582

Post by sigmoid10 »

A_D_E_P_T wrote: post #444
pbalau wrote: post #427

> 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.

Which model did you use? With 5.1 Thinking, I get: "Costel Pantilimon is the Romanian footballer who won the English Premier League. "He did it twice with Manchester City, in the 2011–12 and 2013–14 seasons, earning a winner’s medal as a backup goalkeeper. ([Wikipedia][1]) URLs: * [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costel_Pantilimon ] * [ https://www.transfermarkt.com/costel-pantilimon/erfolge/spie... ] * [ https://thef…

Same here, but with the default 5.1 auto and no extra settings. Every time someone posts one of these I just imagine they must have misunderstood the UI settings or cluttered their context somehow.

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

#583

Post by Zr01 »

xmcqdpt2 wrote: post #499
Quarrel wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My worry is that they're training it on Q&A from the general public now, and that this tone, and more specifically, how obsequious it can be, is exactly what the general public want. Most of the time, I suspect, people are using it like wikipedia, but with a shortcut to cut through to the real question they want answered; and unfortunately they don't know if it is right or wrong, they just want to be told how bright…

LLMs only really make sense for tasks where verifying the solution (which you have to do!) is significantly easier than solving the problem: translation where you know the target and source languages, agentic coding with automated tests, some forms of drafting or copy editing, etc. General search is not one of those! Sure, the machine can give you its sources but it won't tell you about sources it ignored. And verify…

I've often found it helpful in search. Specifically, when the topic is well-documented, you can provide a clear description, but you're lacking the right words or terminology. Then it can help in finding the right question to ask, if not answering it. Recall when we used to laugh at people typing in literal questions into the Google search bar? Those are the exact types of queries that the LLM is equipped to answer. As for the "improvements" in GPT 5.1, seems to me like another case of pushing Clippy on people who want Anton. https://www.latent.space/p/clippy-v-anton

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

#585

Post by brookst »

dkersten wrote: post #576

I don’t want more conversational, I want more to the point. Less telling me how great my question is, less about being friendly, instead I want more cold, hard, accurate, direct, and factual results. It’s a machine and a tool, not a person and definitely not my friend.

You’re in the minority here.

I get it. I prefer cars with no power steering and few comforts. I write lots of my own small home utility apps.

That’s just not the relationship most people want to have with tech and products.

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

#586

Post by wrsh07 »

forgetfulness wrote: post #498
4b11b4 wrote: post #493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is this top comment.. this isn't a question you ask an LLM. But I know, that's how people are using them and is the narrative which is sold to us...

You see people (business people who are enthusiastic about tech, often), claiming that these bots are the new Google and Wikipedia, and that you’re behind the times if you do, what amounts, to looking up information yourself. We’re preaching to the choir by being insistent here that you prompt these things to get a “vibe” about a topic rather than accurate information, but it bears repeating.

Out of curiosity, is this a question you think Google is well-suited to answer^? How many Wikipedia pages will you need to open to determine the answer?

When folks are frustrated because they see a bizarre question that is an extreme outlier being touted as "model still can't do _" part of it is because you've set the goalposts so far beyond what traditional Google search or Wikipedia are useful for.

^ I spent about five minutes looking for the answer via Google, and the only way I got the answer was their ai summary. Thus, I would still need to confirm the fact.

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

#587

Post by Zenst »

dkersten wrote: post #576

I don’t want more conversational, I want more to the point. Less telling me how great my question is, less about being friendly, instead I want more cold, hard, accurate, direct, and factual results. It’s a machine and a tool, not a person and definitely not my friend.

Totally - if anything I want something more like Orac persona wise from Blakes 7 to the point and blunt. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9vX-x9fVyo

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

#588

Post by brookst »

hellohihello135 wrote: post #584

The amount of grumpiness in this comment thread is amazing.

AI really is the perfect storm for HN grump:

* Untrained barbarians are writing software!

* Pop culture is all about AI!

* High paying tech jobs are at risk!

* Marketers are over-promising what the tech can do!

* The tech itself is fallible!

* Our ossified development practices are being challenged!

* These ML outsiders are encroaching on our turf!

* Our family members keep asking about it!

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

#589

Post by rightbyte »

theoldgreybeard wrote: post #551
pbalau wrote: post #427

> 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.

I really only use LLMs for coding and IT related questions. I've had Claude self-correct itself several times about how something might be the more idiomatic way do do something after starting to give me the answer. For example, I'll ask how to set something up in a startup script and I've had it start by giving me strict POSIX syntax then self-correct once it "realizes" that I am using zsh. I find it amusing, but al…

> I find it amusing, but also I wonder what causes the LLM to behave this way.

Forum threads etc. should have writers changing their minds upon feedback which might have this effect, maybe.

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

#590

Post by wrsh07 »

hamburgererror wrote: post #552
4b11b4 wrote: post #533

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll respond to this bait in the hopes that it clicks for someone how to _not_ use an LLM.. Asking "them"... your perspective is already warped. It's not your fault, all the text we've previously ever seen is associated with a human being. Language models are mathematical, statistical beasts. The beast generally doesn't do well with open ended questions (known as "zero-shot"). It shines when you give it something to…

I was not trolling actually, thanks for your detailed answer. I don't use LLMs so much so I didn't know they work better the way you describe.

Fwiw, if you can use a thinking model, you can get them to do useful things. Find specific webpages (menus, online government forms - visa applications or addresses, etc).

The best thing about the latter is search ads have extremely unfriendly ads that might charge you 2x the actual fee, so using Google is a good way to get scammed.

If I'm walking somewhere (common in NYC) I often don't mind issuing a query (what's the salt and straw menu in location today) and then checking back in a minute. (Or.... Who is playing at x concert right now if I overhear music. It will sometimes require extra encouragement - "keep trying" to get the right one)

Post reply on HN