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

OpenAI researcher announced GPT-5 math breakthrough that never happened

the-decoder.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 258 posts

Re: OpenAI researcher announced GPT-5 math breakthrough that never happened

#141

Post by swat535 »

mrbombastic wrote: post #111
goalieca wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The porn pivot makes perfect sense. Porn is already quite fake and unconvincing and none of that matters.

It might not matter as far as profitability is concerned, ethically the second order effects will be very problematic. I am no puritan but the widespread availability of porn has already affected peoples sexual expectations greatly. AI generated porn is going to remove even more guardrails for behavior previously considered deviant, people will view and bring those expectations back to real life.

This is the same argument that people used for video games, "rock music" and violent movies.

I would argue that AI generated porn might be more ethical than traditional porn because the risk of the models being abused or trafficked is virtually zero.

Re: OpenAI researcher announced GPT-5 math breakthrough that never happened

#143

Post by georgemcbay »

andrewflnr wrote: post #130
crazygringo wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experience doing literature super-deep-dives, it hallucinates sources about 50% of the time. (For higher-level literature surveys, it's maybe 5%.) Of the other 50% that are real, it's often ~evenly split into sources I'm familiar with and sources I'm not. So it's hugely useful in surfacing papers that I may very well never have found otherwise using e.g. Google Scholar. It's particularly useful in finding relev…

So, the exact stuff Google used to be good at.

Pretty much, though Google got bad at these things well before LLMs really came on to the scene, and we can all debate which project manager was responsible and the month and year things took a downward turn, but the IMO obvious catalyst was that "Barely Good Enough" search creates more ad impressions, especially when virtually all of the bad results you are serving are links to sites that also serve Google managed ads.

Re: OpenAI researcher announced GPT-5 math breakthrough that never happened

#144

Post by NitpickLawyer »

goalieca wrote: post #138
NitpickLawyer wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They really can’t. Token prediction based on context does not reason. Debating about "reasoning" or not is not fruitful, IMO. It's an endless debate that can go anywhere and nowhere in particular. I try to look at results: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2508.15260 Abstract: > Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown great potential in reasoning tasks through test-time scaling methods like self-consistency with majority votin…

> Debating about "reasoning" or not is not fruitful, IMO. Thats kind of the whole need isn’t it? Humans can automate simple tasks very effectively and cheaply already. If I ask my pro versions of LLM what the Unicode value of a seahorse is, and it shows a picture of a horse and gives me the Unicode value for a third completely related animal then it’s pretty clear it can’t reason itself out of a wet paper bag.

Sorry perhaps I worded that poorly. I meant debating about if context stuffing is or isn't "reasoning". At the end of the day, whatever RL + long context does to LLMs seems to provide good results. Reasoning or not :)

Re: OpenAI researcher announced GPT-5 math breakthrough that never happened

#145

Post by andai »

Timsky wrote: post #86

> GPT-5 is proving useful as a literature review assistant No, it does not. It only produces a highly convincing counterfeit. I am honestly happy for people who are satisfied with its output: life is way easier for them than for me. Obviously, the machine discriminates me personally. When I spend hours in the library looking for some engineering-related math made in the 70s-80s, as a last resort measure, I can try to…

There's this principle, I forget the name, but how everyone when reading the newspaper, when they read on a subject they're familiar with, will instantly spot all the holes, all the errors. And they will ask themselves, how was this even published in the first place?

But then they flip to the next page and they read a story on a subject they're not an expert on and they just accept all of it without question.

I think people might have a similar relationship with ChatGPT.

Re: OpenAI researcher announced GPT-5 math breakthrough that never happened

#146

Post by [deleted] »

macrolime wrote: post #129
crazygringo wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experience doing literature super-deep-dives, it hallucinates sources about 50% of the time. (For higher-level literature surveys, it's maybe 5%.) Of the other 50% that are real, it's often ~evenly split into sources I'm familiar with and sources I'm not. So it's hugely useful in surfacing papers that I may very well never have found otherwise using e.g. Google Scholar. It's particularly useful in finding relev…

What is "it". Gpt-5 auto? Gpt-5 pro? Deep research? These have wildly different hallucination rates.

[deleted]

Re: OpenAI researcher announced GPT-5 math breakthrough that never happened

#148

Post by btrettel »

andai wrote: post #145
Timsky wrote: post #86

> GPT-5 is proving useful as a literature review assistant No, it does not. It only produces a highly convincing counterfeit. I am honestly happy for people who are satisfied with its output: life is way easier for them than for me. Obviously, the machine discriminates me personally. When I spend hours in the library looking for some engineering-related math made in the 70s-80s, as a last resort measure, I can try to…

There's this principle, I forget the name, but how everyone when reading the newspaper, when they read on a subject they're familiar with, will instantly spot all the holes, all the errors. And they will ask themselves, how was this even published in the first place? But then they flip to the next page and they read a story on a subject they're not an expert on and they just accept all of it without question. I think…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect

Re: OpenAI researcher announced GPT-5 math breakthrough that never happened

#149

Post by bathtub365 »

macrolime wrote: post #129
crazygringo wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experience doing literature super-deep-dives, it hallucinates sources about 50% of the time. (For higher-level literature surveys, it's maybe 5%.) Of the other 50% that are real, it's often ~evenly split into sources I'm familiar with and sources I'm not. So it's hugely useful in surfacing papers that I may very well never have found otherwise using e.g. Google Scholar. It's particularly useful in finding relev…

What is "it". Gpt-5 auto? Gpt-5 pro? Deep research? These have wildly different hallucination rates.

If these rates are known it would be great for OpenAI to be open about them so customers can make an informed decision

Re: OpenAI researcher announced GPT-5 math breakthrough that never happened

#150

Post by badsectoracula »

NitpickLawyer wrote: post #128
mrbungie wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty sure you can fill a room with serious researchers that at the very least will doubt about 2) being solved with LLMs, especially when talking about formal planning with pure LLMs and without a planning framwork. PS: So just we're clear: formal planning in AI making a coding plan in Cursor.

> with pure LLMs and without a planning framwork. Sure, but isn't that moving the goalposts? Why shouldn't we use LLMs + tools if it works? If anything it shows that the early detractors weren't even considering this could work. Yann in particular was skeptical that long-context things can happen in LLMs at all. We now have "agents" that can work a problem for hours, with self context trimming, planning to md files,…

> Sure, but isn't that moving the goalposts? Why shouldn't we use LLMs + tools if it works?

Personally i do not see it like that at all as one is referring to LLMs specifically while the other is referring to LLMs plus a bunch of other stuff around them.

It is like person A claiming that GIF files can be used to play Doom deathmatches, person B responding that, no, a GIF file cannot start a Doom deathmatch, it is fundamentally impossible to do so and person A retorting that since the GIF format has a provision for advancing a frame on user input, a GIF viewer can interpret that input as the user wanting to launch Doom in deathmatch mode - ergo, GIF files can be used to play Doom deathmatches.

Post reply on HN