Live data from Hacker News

GPT-4.1 in the API

openai.com

291–300 of 513 posts

Re: GPT-4.1 in the API

#291

GPT-4.1 probably is a distilled version of GPT-4.5 I dont understand the constant complaining about naming conventions. The number system differentiates the models based on capability, any other method would not do that. After ten models with random names like "gemini", "nebula" you would have no idea which is which. Its a low IQ take. You dont name new versions of software as completely different software Also, Yest…

> Software will get automated, and it already is, people just havent figured it out yet

To be honest I think this is most AI labs (particularly the American ones) not-so-secret goal now, for a number of strong reasons. You can see it in this announcements, Anthrophic's recent Claude 3.7 announcement, OpenAI's first planned agent (SWE-Agent), etc etc. They have to justify their worth somehow and they see it as a potential path to do that. Remains to be seen how far they will get - I hope I'm wrong.

The reasons however for picking this path IMO are:

- Their usage statistics show coding as the main user: Anthrophic recently released their stats. Its become the main usage of these models, with other usages at best being novelty or conveniences for people in relative size. Without this market IMO the hype would of already fizzled awhile ago at best a novelty when looking at the rest of the user base size.

- They "smell blood" to disrupt and fear is very effective to promote their product: This IMO is the biggest one. Disrupting software looks to be an achievable goal, but it also is a goal that has high engagement compared to other use cases. No point solving something awesome if people don't care, or only care for awhile (e.g. meme image generation). You can see the developers on this site and elsewhere in fear. Fear is the best marketing tool ever and engagement can last years. It keeps people engaged and wanting to know more; and talking about how "they are cooked" almost to the exclusion of everything else (i.e. focusing on the threat). Nothing motivates you to know a product more than not being able to provide for yourself, your family, etc to the point that most other tech topics/innovations are being drowned out by AI announcements.

- Many of them are losing money and need a market to disrupt: Currently the existing use cases of a chat bot are not yet impressive enough (or haven't been till very recently) to justify the massive valuations of these companies. Its coding that is allowing them to bootstrap into other domains.

- It is a domain they understand: AI dev's know models, they understand the software process. It may be a complex domain requiring constant study, but they know it back to front. This makes it a good first case for disruption where the data, and the know how is already with the teams.

TL;DR: They are coming after you, because it is a big fruit that is easier to pick for them than other domains. Its also one that people will notice either out of excitement (CEO, VC's, Management, etc) or out of fear (tech workers, academics, other intellectual workers).

Re: GPT-4.1 in the API

#292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that while you can train a model with the hyperparameter of "context size" set to 1M, there's very little 1M data to train on. Most of your model's ability to follow long context comes from the fact that it's trained on lots of (stolen) books; in fact I believe OpenAI just outright said in court that they can't do long context without training on books. Novels are usually measured in terms of words; an…

I'm not sure to which extent this opinion is accurately informed. It is well known that nobody trains on 1M token-long content. It wouldn't work anyway as the dependencies are too far fetched and you end up with vanishing gradients. RoPE (Rotary Positional Embeddings, think modulo or periodic arithmetics) scaling is key, whereby the model is trained on 16k tokens long content, and then scaled up to 100k+ [0]. Qwen 1M…

Is there any evidence that GPT-4.1 is using RoPE to scale context?

Also, I don't know about Qwen, but I know Llama 4 has severe performance issues, so I wouldn't use that as an example.

Re: GPT-4.1 in the API

#293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone making claims with a horizon beyond two months about structure or capabilities will be wrong - it's sama's job to show confidence and vision and calm stakeholders, but if you're paying attention to the field, the release and research cycles are still contracting, with no sense of slowing any time soon. I've followed AI research daily since GPT-2, the momentum is incredible, and even if the industry sticks with…

> Things are going to continue getting better, faster, and weirder. I love this. Especially the weirder part. This tech can be useful in every crevice of society and we still have no idea what new creative use cases there are. Who would’ve guessed phones and social media would cause mass protests because bystanders could record and distribute videos of the police?

> Who would’ve guessed phones and social media would cause mass protests because bystanders could record and distribute videos of the police?

That would have been quite far down on my list of "major (unexpected) consequences of phones and social media"...

Re: GPT-4.1 in the API

#294

“GPT‑4.1 scores 54.6% on SWE-bench Verified, improving by 21.4%abs over GPT‑4o and 26.6%abs over GPT‑4.5—making it a leading model for coding.” 4.1 is 26.6% better at coding than 4.5. Got it. Also…see the em dash

Should have named it 4.10

Re: GPT-4.1 in the API

#295
post #238

Sam Altman wrote in February that GPT-4.5 would be "our last non-chain-of-thought model" [1], but GPT-4.1 also does not have internal chain-of-thought [2]. It seems like OpenAI keeps changing its plans. Deprecating GPT-4.5 less than 2 months after introducing it also seems unlikely to be the original plan. Changing plans is necessarily a bad thing, but I wonder why. Did they not expect this model to turn out as well…

> Deprecating GPT-4.5 less than 2 months after introducing it also seems unlikely to be the original plan.

Well they actually hinted already of possible depreciation in their initial announcement of gpt4.5 [0]. Also, as others said, this model was already offered in the api as chatgpt-latest, but there was no checkpoint which made it unreliable for actual use.

[0] https://openai.com/index/introducing-gpt-4-5/#:~:text=we%E2%...

Re: GPT-4.1 in the API

#296
post #238

Sam Altman wrote in February that GPT-4.5 would be "our last non-chain-of-thought model" [1], but GPT-4.1 also does not have internal chain-of-thought [2]. It seems like OpenAI keeps changing its plans. Deprecating GPT-4.5 less than 2 months after introducing it also seems unlikely to be the original plan. Changing plans is necessarily a bad thing, but I wonder why. Did they not expect this model to turn out as well…

Anyone making claims with a horizon beyond two months about structure or capabilities will be wrong - it's sama's job to show confidence and vision and calm stakeholders, but if you're paying attention to the field, the release and research cycles are still contracting, with no sense of slowing any time soon. I've followed AI research daily since GPT-2, the momentum is incredible, and even if the industry sticks with…

the release and research cycles are still contracting

Not necessarily progress or benchmarks that as a broader picture you would look at (MMLU etc)

GPT-3 was an amazing step up from GPT-2, something scientists in the field really thought was 10-15 years out at least done in 2, instruct/RHLF for GPTs was a similar massive splash, making the second half of 2021 equally amazing.

However nothing since has really been that left field or unpredictable from then, and it's been almost 3 years since RHLF hit the field. We knew good image understanding as input, longer context, and improved prompting would improve results. The releases are common, but the progress feels like it has stalled for me.

What really has changed since Davinci-instruct or ChatGPT to you? When making an AI-using product, do you construct it differently? Are agents presently more than APIs talking to databases with private fields?

Re: GPT-4.1 in the API

#297
post #238

Sam Altman wrote in February that GPT-4.5 would be "our last non-chain-of-thought model" [1], but GPT-4.1 also does not have internal chain-of-thought [2]. It seems like OpenAI keeps changing its plans. Deprecating GPT-4.5 less than 2 months after introducing it also seems unlikely to be the original plan. Changing plans is necessarily a bad thing, but I wonder why. Did they not expect this model to turn out as well…

When I saw them say 'no more non COT models', I was minorly panicked.

While their competitors have made fantastic models, at the time I perceived ChatGPT4 was the best model for many applications. COT was often tricked by my prompts, assuming things to be true, when a non-COT model would say something like 'That isnt necessarily the case'.

I use both COT and non when I have an important problem.

Seeing them keep a non-COT model around is a good idea.

Re: GPT-4.1 in the API

#299
post #203

don't miss that OAI also published a prompting guide WITH RECEIPTS for GPT 4.1 specifically for those building agents... with a new recommendation for: - telling the model to be persistent (+20%) - dont self-inject/parse toolcalls (+2%) - prompted planning (+4%) - JSON BAD - use XML or arxiv 2406.13121 (GDM format) - put instructions + user query at TOP -and- BOTTOM - bottom-only is VERY BAD - no evidence that ALL CA…

> - JSON BAD - use XML or arxiv 2406.13121 (GDM format) And yet, all function calling and MCP is done through JSON...

JSON is just MCP's transport layer. you can reformat to xml to pass into model

Re: GPT-4.1 in the API

#300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the absolute score means much — judge models have a tendency to score around 7/10 lol 55% vs. 45% equates to about a 36 point difference in ELO. in chess that would be two players in the same league but one with a clear edge

Rarely are two models put head-to-head though. If Claude Sonnet 3.7 isn't able to generate a good PR review (for whatever reason), a 2% better review isn't all that strong of a value proposition.

the point is oai is saying they have a viable Claude Sonnet competitor now
Post reply on HN