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

GPT-5 is behind schedule

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 1001 posts

Re: GPT-5 is behind schedule

#181

Post by emeg »

throwaway314155 wrote: post #118
ionwake wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Sama ever reads this, I have no idea why no users seem to focus on this, but it would be really good to prioritise being able to select which model you can use with the custom myGPTs. I know this maybe hard or not possible without recreating them , but I still dont think it's possible. I dont think most customers realise how much better the models work with custom GPTs.

At this point I think it's safe to say they have given up on custom GPTs.

What makes you say that?

Re: GPT-5 is behind schedule

#182

Post by phillipcarter »

More palace intrigue, sigh.

Meanwhile, the biggest opportunity lies not in whatever next thing OpenAI releases, but the rest of the enormous software industry actually integrating this technology and realizing the value it can deliver.

Re: GPT-5 is behind schedule

#183

Post by layer8 »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #129
bwhiting2356 wrote: post #120

I want AI to help me in the physical world: folding my laundry, cooking and farming healthy food, cleaning toilets. Training data is not lying around on the internet for free, but it's also not impossible. How much data do you need? A dozen warehouses full of robots folding and unfolding laundry 24/7 for a few months?

Laundry folding is an instructive example. Machines have been capable of home-scale laundry folding for over a decade, with two companies Foldimate and Laundroid building functional prototypes. The challenge is making it cost-competitive in a world where most people don't even purchase a $10 folding board. I would guess that most cooking and cleaning tasks are in basically the same space. You don't need fine motor co…

Counterexample: Everyone uses dishwashers. Yet I don’t think we’ll have a robot doing the dishes human-style, or even just filling up and clearing out a dishwasher, within the next decade or two, regardless of price.

Re: GPT-5 is behind schedule

#184

Post by BoorishBears »

glenstein wrote: post #180
Yizahi wrote: post #165

GPT-5 is not behind schedule. GPT-5 is called GPT-4o and it has been already released half a year ago. It was not revolutionary enough to be called 5, and prophet saint Altman was probably afraid to release new gen not exponentially improving, so it was rebranded in the last moment. It's speculation of course, but it is kinda obvious speculation.

>GPT-5 is called GPT-4o This is the first I have heard of this in particular. Do you know of any article or source for more on the efforts to train GPT 5 and the decision to call it GPT 4o?

I think my biggest pet peeve is when someone shares an insight which is unmistakably based on intuition, inference, critical thinking, etc (all mental faculties we are allowed to use to come to conclusions in the face of information asymmetry btw)

...and then gets hit deadpan with the good old "Source?", like it's some sort of gotcha.

I think people have started to confuse "making logical conclusions without perfect info" with "misinformation"

-

Before certain people start acting like this is advocating for misinformation (which would be an incredible irony...) it's not.

I'm saying if you disagree with what someone supposits, just state so directly. Don't wrap it in a disingenous query for a source.

Re: GPT-5 is behind schedule

#185

Post by jncfhnb »

__loam wrote: post #126
jncfhnb wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Riddle me this. If all these people are "getting value", why are all these companies losing horrendous amounts of money? Why has nobody figured out how to be profitable? While I agree that LLMs are not currently working great for most envisioned use cases; this premise here is not a good argument. Large LLM providers are not trying to be profitable at the moment. They’re trying to grow and that’s pretty sensible. U…

I'm not sure I would call incinerating 11b dollars a year to the point where you need to do one of the biggest raises ever and it doesn't even buy you a year of runway sensible.

Based on their forecasts it’s still pretty sensible. I don’t personally believe the forecasts are sensible. But that’s besides the point.

Re: GPT-5 is behind schedule

#186

Post by kevingadd »

vasco wrote: post #173
nialv7 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> OpenAI’s next moat I don't think oai has any moat at all. If you look around, QwQ from Alibaba is already pushing o1-preview performances. I think oai is only ahead by 3~6 months at most.

If their AGI dreams would come true it might be more than enough to have 3 months head start. They probably won't, but it's interesting to ponder what the next few hours, days, weeks would be for someone that would wield AGI. Like let's say you have a few datacenters of compute at your disposal and the ability to instantiate millions of AGI agents - what do you have them do? I wonder if the USA already has a secret p…

How many important problems are there where a 3 month head start on the data side is enough to win permanently and retain your advantage in the long run?

I'm struggling to think of a scenario where "I have AGI in January and everyone else has it in April" is life-changing. It's a win, for sure, and it's an advantage, but success in business requires sustainable growth and manageable costs.

If (random example) the bargain OpenAI strikes is "we spend every cent of our available capital to get AGI 3 months before the other guys do" they've now tapped all the resources they would need to leverage AGI and turn it into profitable, scalable businesses, while the other guys can take it slow and arrive with full pockets. I don't think their leadership is stupid enough to burn all their resources chasing AGI but it does seem like operating and training costs are an ongoing problem for them.

History is littered with first-movers who came up with something first and then failed to execute on it, only for someone else to follow up and actually turn the idea into a success. I don't see any reason to assume that the "first AGI" is going to be the only successful AGI on the market, or even a success at all. Even if you've developed an AGI that can change the world you need to keep it running so it can do that.

Consider it this way: Sam Altman & his ilk have been talking up how dangerous OpenAI's technology is. Are risk-averse businessmen and politicians going to be lining up to put their livelihood or even their lives in the hands of "dangerous technology"? Or are they going to wait 3-6 months and adopt the "safe" AGI from somebody else instead?

Re: GPT-5 is behind schedule

#187

Post by CSMastermind »

oceanplexian wrote: post #166
peepeepoopoo98 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

O3 has demonstrated that OpenAI needs 1,000,000% more inference time compute to score 50% higher on benchmarks. If O3-High costs about $350k an hour to operate, that would mean making O4 score 50% higher would cost $3.5B (!!!) an hour. That scaling wall.

I’m convinced they’re getting good at gaming the benchmarks since 4 has deteriorated via ChatGPT, in fact I’ve used 4-0125 and 4-1106 via the API and find them far superior to o1 and o1-mini at coding problems. GPT4 is an amazing tool but the true capabilities are being hidden from the public and/or intentionally neutered.

> I’ve used 4-0125 and 4-1106 via the API and find them far superior to o1 and o1-mini at coding problems

Just chiming in to say you're not alone. This has been my experience as well. The o# line of models just don't do well at coding, regardless of what the benchmarks say.

Re: GPT-5 is behind schedule

#188

Post by KTibow »

viraptor wrote: post #127
404mm wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quite funny that an article about AI was not fed to AI to proof read it.

Editing mistakes that AI wouldn't make is the new "proof of human input".

I've been messing around with base (not instruction tuned) LLMs; they often evade AI detectors and I wouldn't be surprised if they evade this kind of detection too, at least with a high temperature

Re: GPT-5 is behind schedule

#189

Post by kevingadd »

h_tbob wrote: post #36

It seems google has a massive advantage here since they can tap all of YouTube to train. I wonder what openai is using for its video data source.

Considering how evasive they've been, it might also be YouTube.

> When pressed on what data OpenAI used to train Sora, Murati didn’t get too specific and seemed to dodge the question. “I’m not going to go into the details of the data that was used, but it was publicly available or licensed data,” she says. Murati also says she isn’t sure whether it used videos from YouTube, Facebook, and Instagram. She only confirmed to the Journal that Sora uses content from Shutterstock, with which OpenAI has a partnership.

https://www.theverge.com/2024/3/13/24099402/openai-text-to-v...

Re: GPT-5 is behind schedule

#190

Post by threeseed »

synapsomorphy wrote: post #135
Animats wrote: post #123

"Orion’s problems signaled to some at OpenAI that the more-is-more strategy, which had driven much of its earlier success, was running out of steam." So LLMs finally hit the wall. For a long time, more data, bigger models, and more compute to drive them worked. But that's apparently not enough any more. Now someone has to have a new idea. There's plenty of money available if someone has one. The current level of LLM…

The new idea is already here and it's reasoning / chain of thought. Anecdotally Claude is pretty good at knowing the bounds of its knowledge.

Anecdotally Claude is just as bad as every other LLM.

Step into more niche areas e.g. I am trying to use it with Scala macros and at least 90% of the time it is giving code that either (a) fails to compile or (b) is just complete gibberish.

And at no point ever has it said it didn't know something.

Post reply on HN