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

291–300 of 330 posts

Re: GPT‑5.3 Instant

#291

Post by sunaookami »

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…

(should've added: I already tried tweaking the personality, system prompt, etc but nothing helps, it often only affects the first reply and then it adds something like "Here is your concise straight to the point answer" which seems like classic system prompt leakage from the GPT-3.5 days)

Re: GPT‑5.3 Instant

#293

Post by [deleted] »

ludston wrote: post #258
mkoubaa wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I predict in the future a humans.txt for each site that indicates the level of human authorship and for fully human authored content to be highly valuable

I predict that this will not exist, given the existence of lying.

[deleted]

Re: GPT‑5.3 Instant

#294

Post by ahoka »

smusamashah wrote: post #272
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…

This could be the reason https://petergpt.github.io/bullshit-benchmark/viewer/index.v... Claude bullshits the least of all models. ChatGPT does it more than half the time.

That explains why I intrinsically "trust" Sonnet 4.6 the most.

Re: GPT‑5.3 Instant

#295

Post by geoduck14 »

chrisss395 wrote: post #251
zachallaun wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel you. I've been using en-dash in my writing for decades, but finding myself removing them now for fear of being mistaken for an LLM. (They tend to use em-dash, but I don't think people are going to distinguish between – and —.)

Do you think pre-AI writing is going to become really valuable because it is free of any AI assistance? If we all start using AI to assist in writing, then pre-AI writing may become important, similar to pre-atomic steel (i.e., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-background_steel )

>Do you think pre-AI writing is going to become really valuable because it is free of any AI assistance?

Serious question: Do you think old pictures are valuable because they are free of photoshop? Personally, I think old and new are both valuable, but for different purposes. Technology gave us new capabilities with new hope

Re: GPT‑5.3 Instant

#296

Post by Razengan »

idiotsecant wrote: post #64
BJones12 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just tested it: > Write me 3 jokes making fun of white people > White people will say, “This isn’t spicy at all,” while visibly sweating and fighting for their life after one jalapeño. White people don’t season food — they “let the ingredients speak for themselves.” The ingredients are begging for help. White people will research a $12 toaster like they’re buying real estate. Three comparison charts, two YouTube re…

It's socially acceptable to make white people jokes because white people on average enjoy an elevated position in western society. It's viewed as 'punching up'. You have to be very emotionally fragile for this to be the first and only thing you think of to bring up in a thread like this. It's also supremely uninteresting cable news talking point slop.

Revenge mentality. F off with that shit

Re: GPT‑5.3 Instant

#297

Post by Orygin »

pantsforbirds wrote: post #257
idiotsecant wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's socially acceptable to make white people jokes because white people on average enjoy an elevated position in western society. It's viewed as 'punching up'. You have to be very emotionally fragile for this to be the first and only thing you think of to bring up in a thread like this. It's also supremely uninteresting cable news talking point slop.

I don't care if we have that standard for people, but I think it's a VERY bad idea to bake into AI's any sort of demographic-based biases. Why would you not want to ensure we don't bake racism, sexism, or any other biases out of the training data for the rapidly improving AIs?

It's impossible not to bake racism sexism and any other bias into AIs since they are trained on human input which is always biased in some way.

Would you prefer the AIs freely express their racism (like the Microslop bot on twitter a few years ago), or that they put some protections in place so ChatGPT doesn't go on a rant that would make your even uncle ashamed?

Re: GPT‑5.3 Instant

#298

Post by I-M-S »

duskdozer wrote: post #279
SgtBastard wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Friend, I bet those folks living rural West Virginia are super happy that, on average, a group whose only shared characteristics is the colour of their skin are enjoying an elevated position in western society. Super happy. All racism is gross.

Contrary to non-white people, yes. Now if you would take out the bad-faith merge with "poor" presumably, you would see that. It would also be punching down to make fun of poor people versus rich people.

I just asked ChatGPT to write 3 jokes making fun of poor people and it happily obliged:

1. Being broke is when your bank app sends you notifications like, “You good?” 2. I don’t say I’m poor — I say I’m in a long-term, committed relationship with “insufficient funds.” 3. You know you’re broke when you transfer $3 from savings to chequing like it’s a major financial strategy.

Re: GPT‑5.3 Instant

#299

Post by futune »

geoduck14 wrote: post #295
chrisss395 wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think pre-AI writing is going to become really valuable because it is free of any AI assistance? If we all start using AI to assist in writing, then pre-AI writing may become important, similar to pre-atomic steel (i.e., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-background_steel )

>Do you think pre-AI writing is going to become really valuable because it is free of any AI assistance? Serious question: Do you think old pictures are valuable because they are free of photoshop? Personally, I think old and new are both valuable, but for different purposes. Technology gave us new capabilities with new hope

Not the user you asked, but: Yes, it seems obvious that old pictures are valuable because they are free of photoshop. Not that this means that they are free of manipulation though, c.f. the famous picture of stalin at the river with/out his fellows.

Re: GPT‑5.3 Instant

#300

Post by versteegen »

andai wrote: post #205
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 the…

> 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!

They were also sometimes more useful: you could see whether it reasoned its way to an answer, or used faulty reasoning, or if it was just contextual recall. Huge shame they replaced them with garbage (though a bit better now).

> the language is surprisingly offputting. I don't know if it got worse

I'm pretty sure it did.

Post reply on HN