Live data from Hacker News

OpenAI researcher announced GPT-5 math breakthrough that never happened

the-decoder.com

31–40 of 258 posts

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

#31
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People keep spouting this, but I don't see how the AI bubble bursting would be all that devastating. 2008 was a systemic breakdown rippling through the foundations of the financial system. It would lead to a market crash (80% of gains this year were big tech/AI) and likely a full recession in the US, but nothing nearly as dramatic as a global systemic crisis. In contrast to the dot com bubble, the huge AI spending is…

Isn't the dot com bubble a far better proxy? Notably, todays spending is both higher and more concentrated in a few companies that a large part of the population has exposure to (most dot com companies weren't publicly traded and far smaller vs MSFT, Alphabet, Meta, Oracle, NVDA making up most investment today) by way of pension funds, ETFs, etc.?

Sure, but all of the above have solid businesses that rake in lots of money, revenue based on AI is a small percentage for them.

An AI bust would take the stock price down a good deal, but the stock gains have been relatively moderate. Year on year: Microsoft +14%, Meta +24%, Google +40, Oracle +60%, ... And a notable chunk of those gains have indirectly come from the dollar devaluing.

Nvidia would be hit much harder of course.

There is a good amount of smaller AI startups, but a lot of the AI development is concentrated on the big dogs, it's not nearly as systemic as in dot com, where a lot of businesses went under completely.

And even with an AI freeze, there is plenty of value and usage there already that will not go away, but will keep expanding (AI chat, AI coding, etc) which will mitigate things.

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

#32

Humans hallucinating about AI.

Humans "hallucinate" in the AI way constantly, which is why I don't see them as a barrier to LLMs replacing humans in many contexts. It really isn't unusual for a human to make stuff up or be unaware of stuff.

it's the same thing with self-driving, if you can make it safer than a good human driver it's enough. but the bar is pretty low with driving (as evidenced by the hundreds of thousands of collisions and deaths and permanent disabilities each year). and rather high in scientific publishing.

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

#33

This entire thing has been pretty disingenuous on both sides of the fence. All the anti-AI (or anti OpenAI) people are doing victory laps, but what GPT-5 Pro did is still very valuable. 1) What good is your open problem set if really its a trivial "google search" away from being solved. Why are they not catching any blame here? 2) These answers still weren't perfectly laid out for the most part. GPT-5 was still doing…

> 1) What good is your open problem set if really its a trivial "google search" away from being solved. Why are they not catching any blame here?

Please explain how this is in any way related to the matter at hand. What is the relation between the incompleteness of an math problem database, and AI hypesters lying about the capabilities of GPT5? I fail to see the relevance.

> If a human would have done this by hand it would have made news

If someone updated information on an obscure math problem aggregator database this would be news?? Again, I fail to see your point here.

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

#36

Humans hallucinating about AI.

These days AI just obsequiously praise whatever stupid ideas the human throw at them, which encourage humans into hallucinating breakthroughs.

But it's only a matter of time before AI gets better at prompt engineering.

/s?

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

#38

Humans hallucinating about AI.

Humans "hallucinate" in the AI way constantly, which is why I don't see them as a barrier to LLMs replacing humans in many contexts. It really isn't unusual for a human to make stuff up or be unaware of stuff.

A human being informed of a mistake will usually be able to resolve it and learn something in the process, whereas an LLM is more likely to spiral into nonsense

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

#39
post #9

This honestly doesn’t surprise me. We have reached a point where it’s becoming clearer and clearer that AGI is nowhere to be seen, whereas advances in LLM ability to ‘reason’ have slowed down to (almost?) a halt.

In my book, chat-based AGI has been reached years ago, when I couldn't reliably distinguish computer from human. Solving problems that humanity couldn't solve is super-AGI or something like that. It's not there indeed.

Beating the Turing Test is not AGI, but it is beating the Turing Test and that was impressive enough when it happened
Post reply on HN