Live data from Hacker News

GPT‑Live

openai.com

251–260 of 556 posts

Re: GPT‑Live

#251

What I’m missing from this announcement is the capability to use connectors and tools. I don’t really get it - NONE of the frontier assistants can use tools / connectors while in voice mode - Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini, Grok. It seems so obvious: I want to be able to research stuff, pull up documents, jot down notes and do productive work while I’m talking to it, and not end voice mode whenever I need to connect to an a…

This is not true. Realtime 2 can use tools.

Re: GPT‑Live

#253

(Atty from OpenAI here) GPT-Live-1 is the first version of a new generation of models, and we believe the full-duplex architecture + delegation enables entirely new ways of human-AI interaction. Would love to hear your feedback!

How does it compare to the realtime-2 model?

Re: GPT‑Live

#254

I'm very eager to test this for brainstorming! One thing I noticed is that we lost vision feature for some reason on the live chat? This was an extremely useful feature. Not sure if it’s a regional thing or that they just removed that from the current live chat. I imagine it will be even more useful with this new version.

(Atty from OpenAI here) GPT-Live does not support video at this point, but we're working hard to introduce it soon. In the meantime, our previous Advanced Voice Mode will continue to be available and supports video.

Thanks for the reply, Atty. So I guess I'm holding it wrong?

For some reason, I can't use the camera while in Live mode. The only option I see is the plus item, which does show the camera, but when I open it up and ask "Are you seeing my camera?" it will always say no and recommend me to open it.

Feels like the official camera icon does not show up for me? iPhone 13, ChatGPT Pro subscription.

Re: GPT‑Live

#255

What I’m missing from this announcement is the capability to use connectors and tools. I don’t really get it - NONE of the frontier assistants can use tools / connectors while in voice mode - Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini, Grok. It seems so obvious: I want to be able to research stuff, pull up documents, jot down notes and do productive work while I’m talking to it, and not end voice mode whenever I need to connect to an a…

I've been using tools in the OpenAI SDK with voice for well over a year now.

Just super difficult.

See more here:

https://github.com/sibblegp/ODAI/blob/main/routers/app_voice...

Re: GPT‑Live

#256
post #19

I had preview access to this one for a few weeks. It's very good. I had one conversation that lasted a full hour while I was walking the dog, got some good brainstorming done against one of my projects. The best feature is that it can delegate questions out to GPT-5.5 in the background, so you're no longer restricted to a voice model that's several years behind the frontier. I did report a fun bug with it though: it…

I love the UX of voice mode. I’ve always hated voice models.

Gemini’s being particularly egregious (always ending in some deranged question, can not reliably be prompted away) prompted me to build my own client for my real harness that simply does STT -> model -> TTS (both being independently useful).

I guess I see some value in a model responding quickly and with more nuance, but it’s not much. I can wait for it to finish. I’d much rather have it be actually useful. I’m not looking for a digital friend.

The delegation feature lets me see some value in a voice model for orchestration type features. But in either case, I don’t really like (or understand why others would like) talking to a model with different features and quirks just because I’m using a different medium to communicate over.

Re: GPT‑Live

#257
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

people have been mistaking AI conversations with reality since the very first text-based models came into the public view with ChatGPT. i'm sure with each incremental improvement to outputs like this, though, more people will get convinced of its "humanity" (see https://www.reddit.com/r/MyBoyfriendIsAI/ )

Every time things like this come up, I can't help but think of the ending of Inception. It's less that you're convinced it's real and more that you no longer care if it is. "Feels real enough" is good enough. I'm a technical user first, so I'm not sure if models have improved for RP the way they improved for applied STEM tasks and technical brainstorming. But if there is an improvement curve there, I wouldn't be surp…

You know, when I wrote that comment I was actually thinking of the ending of Inception. Still makes me very uncomfortable though.

Re: GPT‑Live

#258
post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is such a poor mischaracterization of OP that I actually started agreeing with OP more.

It's also hilariously wrong. It essentially argues, implicitly, that those who don't communicate with other humans are missing out on the "most important thing in life" and cannot form a self-identity.

> Literally the only important thing in life, the basis of all value, the formation of self-identity, comes from communication with other human beings.

I think you're mistaking their sarcasm for sincerity... especially considering the emphasis on self-identity ironically juxtaposed as originating from a decidedly non-self activity, which has all the hallmarks of being intentional...

On the other hand, reading their other content leads one to believe that they may, in fact, be serious... hmm...

Re: GPT‑Live

#259
post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see it more as a way technology could be abused rather than an inherent flaw in the technology itself. If you start to replace human interaction with chatbot interaction, that's bad, but there's nothing wrong with using a human-like chatbot in moderation. So many other types of technology are fine in moderation but can be abused in a human-interaction-replacing way: television, social media, video games, etc.

Yes, but design nudges use in one direction or another. Or, as McLuhan said, "the medium is the message."

I think the same applies with the examples I listed.

Re: GPT‑Live

#260
post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of what AI does is already in wrong direction. Not just human-to-human interaction, it took away thinking, creative work, sensory perception (glasses) and responses. People call it as helping humans, but I call it as sucking away the "human-ness" from humans. After the damage is done, the mega corps would simply shrug and will say "Well, we were just responding to our business competition" The business knows no…

I don't understand this line of reasoning. How are you hindered from doing any of those things? What part of "AI can now do X" makes it so you can't also do X?

Fewer people aren't staring into their phones or talking to them -- makes your social antennas pick up automatically on not wanting to disturb them (lest you draw their ire for not having the social antennas long enough to pick up on the fact they're "busy and don't want to engage with you" like a gymrat with AirPods to signal they're there to pump in peace and quiet listening to their favourite playlist, not talk to strangers). Happened to me already many times just with people scrolling their phone instead of talking and not wanting to talk in particular either, not to me at least. And no -- I am not talking about bothering strangers in the gym etc, I am talking about sitting at the lunch table where half of the people look into their phones -- they aren't actually interested in talking, it turns out.

Our devices have now increased the distance _between_ us -- it's not about _you_ being able to "do X" -- talking to others is not _you_ doing it, it's you _and the other person_ doing it _together_. You can't be doing anything together consentually when the other person is in the habit of talking with their AI, or doomscrolling for that matter.

Post reply on HN