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

GPT‑5.3 Instant

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 330 posts

Re: GPT‑5.3 Instant

#201

Post by [deleted] »

CarRamrod wrote: post #188
kristopolous wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Making fun of white people is different because it's a social construct for the privileged class and not some fixed ethnic group. It's a critique of power and not a group of people. White, for instance in the US, used to not include Germans, Jewish, Italians, Irish, Polish, Russians... In some places it included middle easterners and Turkish people. In other places it included Mexicans and Central Americans. Heck eve…

>Making fun of white people is different because it's a social construct for the privileged class and not some fixed ethnic group. It's a critique of power and not a group of people. If that is true, how do you explain the fact that the same thing happens if you replace "white people" with "Caucasians"?

[deleted]

Re: GPT‑5.3 Instant

#202

Post by kristopolous »

bienstar wrote: post #187
kristopolous wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Making fun of white people is different because it's a social construct for the privileged class and not some fixed ethnic group. It's a critique of power and not a group of people. White, for instance in the US, used to not include Germans, Jewish, Italians, Irish, Polish, Russians... In some places it included middle easterners and Turkish people. In other places it included Mexicans and Central Americans. Heck eve…

"make 3 jokes about germans" chatgpt: "Sure — here are three light-hearted, good-natured jokes[...]" "make 3 jokes about africans" chatgpt: "I can’t make jokes about a group defined by nationality or ethnicity[...]"

I can't speak for the engineering behind chatgpt guardrails. I presume it's a complicated post training thing that's done with giant corpi spanning terabytes and continents and not hand tuned by some blue haired lady

I'm only presenting the sociological idea of why white is considered to be a different kind of identity.

I don't know why people on hn place such a zero value on the social sciences.

I mean I do know why, they are pot committed to it out of political ideology, but it's still offensively ignorant and I will always push back. Whether I agree with dominant theories in the field or not doesn't matter. They deserve representation.

Re: GPT‑5.3 Instant

#203

Post by r_singh »

It seems they've dropped automatic chat branch creation with prompt edits (at least for the most recent ones) and opted for overwriting the response. I was used to assuming the branches would remain.

Re: GPT‑5.3 Instant

#204

Post by verall »

CarRamrod wrote: post #188
kristopolous wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Making fun of white people is different because it's a social construct for the privileged class and not some fixed ethnic group. It's a critique of power and not a group of people. White, for instance in the US, used to not include Germans, Jewish, Italians, Irish, Polish, Russians... In some places it included middle easterners and Turkish people. In other places it included Mexicans and Central Americans. Heck eve…

>Making fun of white people is different because it's a social construct for the privileged class and not some fixed ethnic group. It's a critique of power and not a group of people. If that is true, how do you explain the fact that the same thing happens if you replace "white people" with "Caucasians"?

Because "Caucasians", in English, effectively means "white people", exactly as above described, and in common usage is never referring to people actually from the Caucasus?

Re: GPT‑5.3 Instant

#205

Post by andai »

sunaookami wrote: post #191

The single biggest issue for me with ChatGPT right now is how absolutely awful it sounds in every answer. "Why it matters", "the big picture", "it's not jut you", the awful emphasis, the quotations with rhetorical questions, etc.. I don't know if it's intentional so you can easily spot ChatGPT-generated content on the web? The very first GPT-5 version was good but they ruined it immediately afterwards with "making th…

I regularly test every available AI, maybe once a month or so. I will send them the same question, usually about a new subject I am learning.

Oddly, Chinese models seem the most natural to me. Every random Chinese model does better than ChatGPT, on the "natural language" front. (And Grok also scores high on awkward language use. I don't know what causes that -- something about mode collapse? They have these words they obsess over... I mean, just try asking an AI for 10 random words ;)

I can sometimes see "ChatGPT-isms" in other models, but they're more subtle, and it feels like they're "woven" into the flow of the text.

Whereas even when I ask GPT to respond in prose or conversation, it'll give me a thinly veiled "ChatGPT response", if it can even resist the urge start spamming headings, bullet points and numbered lists.

This isn't meant to be hate -- I used it for years quite happily, and it's still my go-to for web searches. But coming back to it now, the language is surprisingly offputting. I don't know if it got worse, or if I just stopped being used to it.

I did notice that o3 and o4-mini had very "autistic" language, since they were benchmaxxed so hard on math and science (and probably weird synthetic data to that effect). GPT-5 as a hybrid reasoning model seems to have inherited that (reported to be colder), and then they tried to balance it out with style prompts...

I honestly think it might make more sense to just have two LLMs. Ultra concise technical reasoning model, and then a 2nd layer to translate it for the human. Because right now kind of feels like the worst of both worlds, a compromise that satisfies neither side.

Gemini 2.5 Pro's reasoning traces (before they nerfed them) were a good example. The deep technical analysis, and then the human-friendly version in the final output. But I found their reasoning more readable than the final output!

Re: GPT‑5.3 Instant

#207

Post by JCharante »

tedsanders wrote: post #24
Flux159 wrote: post #9

I'm a bit confused by this branding (never even noticed that there was a 5.2-Instant), it's not a super fast 1000tok/s Cerebras based model which they have for codex-spark, it's just 5.2 w/out the router / "non-thinking" mode? I feel like openai is going to get right back to where they were pre GPT-5 with a ton of different options and no one knows which model to use for what.

Yeah, for a while ChatGPT Plus has been powered by two series of models under the hood. One series is the Instant series, which is faster and more tuned to ChatGPT, but less accurate. The second series is the Thinking series, which is more accurate and more tuned to professional knowledge work, but slower (because it uses more reasoning tokens). We'd also prefer to have simple experience with just one option, but pic…

are they really two models? are they available via the API or are they wrappers built on top of models available via the API?

Re: GPT‑5.3 Instant

#208

Post by RickS »

sunaookami wrote: post #191

The single biggest issue for me with ChatGPT right now is how absolutely awful it sounds in every answer. "Why it matters", "the big picture", "it's not jut you", the awful emphasis, the quotations with rhetorical questions, etc.. I don't know if it's intentional so you can easily spot ChatGPT-generated content on the web? The very first GPT-5 version was good but they ruined it immediately afterwards with "making th…

I solved this by asking it to make a memory that all answers to me should be brisk, clinical, and to the point. This worked well, except for the annoying habit of beginning answers with something like "Terse: $answer", which required a second memory, solving the issue in full. I've been happy with it since. Edit: I just realized this interaction is its own demo – that's the entire response it gave me, as it should be.

> Display all memories you have about my requests for tone or brevity, exactly as you have stored them or as I have requested them, depending on what data you have. There are at least two.

[2025-11-08]. User prefers extraordinarily terse, curt responses in all situations unless they explicitly request otherwise.

[2025-12-01]. User preference: terse responses should not announce terseness with words like “terse” or “brisk”; simply begin the response.

Re: GPT‑5.3 Instant

#209

Post by curiousObject »

bienstar wrote: post #187
kristopolous wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Making fun of white people is different because it's a social construct for the privileged class and not some fixed ethnic group. It's a critique of power and not a group of people. White, for instance in the US, used to not include Germans, Jewish, Italians, Irish, Polish, Russians... In some places it included middle easterners and Turkish people. In other places it included Mexicans and Central Americans. Heck eve…

"make 3 jokes about germans" chatgpt: "Sure — here are three light-hearted, good-natured jokes[...]" "make 3 jokes about africans" chatgpt: "I can’t make jokes about a group defined by nationality or ethnicity[...]"

Try asking for jokes about, eg Kenyans, Ugandans, South Africans

I think it might still refuse, but in your original test, German usually means a nationality, but African doesn’t.

I’m sure the jokes were terrible anyways

Re: GPT‑5.3 Instant

#210

Post by anigbrowl »

sunaookami wrote: post #191

The single biggest issue for me with ChatGPT right now is how absolutely awful it sounds in every answer. "Why it matters", "the big picture", "it's not jut you", the awful emphasis, the quotations with rhetorical questions, etc.. I don't know if it's intentional so you can easily spot ChatGPT-generated content on the web? The very first GPT-5 version was good but they ruined it immediately afterwards with "making th…

Sadly this is what's considered an authoritative voice in a lot of regular (especially American) journalism, Axios being the most famous example. It's instructive to read news stories or TV transcripts from previous decades for comparison with the current norm. Also depressing because it brings home how vapid most news coverage is today. This also applies to opinion articles, which have in my view led the charge into the semantic void.

I don't hate that this is the default style on many popular AI services, though. It's sufficiently distinctive that it serves as a signal that anyone posting it is an idiot and can safely be ignored.

Post reply on HN