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

GPT-5

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 1001 posts

Re: GPT-5

#301

Post by timr »

kybernetikos wrote: post #184

ChatGPT5 in this demo: > For an airplane wing (airfoil), the top surface is curved and the bottom is flatter. When the wing moves forward: > * Air over the top has to travel farther in the same amount of time -> it moves faster -> pressure on the top decreases. > * Air underneath moves slower -> pressure underneath is higher > * The presure difference creates an upward force - lift Isn't that explanation of why wings…

Your link literally says pressure differential is the reason, and that curvature matters:

> “What actually causes lift is introducing a shape into the airflow, which curves the streamlines and introduces pressure changes – lower pressure on the upper surface and higher pressure on the lower surface,” clarified Babinsky, from the Department of Engineering. “This is why a flat surface like a sail is able to cause lift – here the distance on each side is the same but it is slightly curved when it is rigged and so it acts as an aerofoil. In other words, it’s the curvature that creates lift, not the distance.”

So I'd characterize this answer as "correct, but incomplete" or "correct, but simplified". It's a case where a PhD in fluid dynamics might state the explanation one way to an expert audience, but another way to a room full of children.

Re: GPT-5

#302

Post by sethops1 »

WD-42 wrote: post #219
minimaxir wrote: post #41

The marketing copy and the current livestream appear tautological: "it's better because it's better." Not much explanation yet why GPT-5 warrants a major version bump. As usual, the model (and potentially OpenAI as a whole) will depend on output vibe checks.

It has the last ~6 months worth of flavor of the month Javascript libraries in it's training set now, so it's "better at coding". How is this sustainable.

Who said anything about sustainable? The only goal here is to hobble to the next VC round. And then the next, and the next, ...

Re: GPT-5

#304

Post by dcchambers »

ycosynot wrote: post #214

Damn, you guys are toxic. So -- they did not invent AGI yet. Yet, I like what I'm seeing. Major progress on multiple fronts. Hallucination fix is exciting on its own. The React demos were mindblowing.

LLMs are incredibly capable and useful, and OpenAI has made good improvements here. But they're incremental improvements at best - nothing revolutionary.

Meanwhile Sam Altman has been making the rounds fearmongering that AGI/ASI is right around the corner and that clearly is not the truth. It's fair to call them out on it.

Re: GPT-5

#305

Post by 827a »

doctoboggan wrote: post #61

Watching the livestream now, the improvement over their current models on the benchmarks is very small. I know they seemed to be trying to temper our expectations leading up to this, but this is much less improvement than I was expecting

I have a suspicion that while the major AI companies have been pretty samey and competing in the same space for a while now, the market is going to force them to differentiate a bit, and we're going to see OpenAI begin to lose the race toward extremely high levels of intelligence instead choosing to focus on justifying their valuations by optimizing cost and for conversational/normal intelligence/personal assistant use-cases. After all, most of their users just want to use it to cheat at school, get relationship advice, and write business emails. They also have Ive's company to continue investing in.

Meanwhile, Anthropic & Google have more room in their P/S ratios to continue to spend effort on logarithmic intelligence gains.

Doesn't mean we won't see more and more intelligent models out of OpenAI, especially in the o-series, but at some point you have to make payroll and reality hits.

Re: GPT-5

#306

Post by mrbungie »

ycosynot wrote: post #214

Damn, you guys are toxic. So -- they did not invent AGI yet. Yet, I like what I'm seeing. Major progress on multiple fronts. Hallucination fix is exciting on its own. The React demos were mindblowing.

This reaction didn't emerge in a vacuum, and also, toxicity flows both ways. In the tech field we've been continually bombarded for 2+ years about how this tech is going to change the world and how it is going to replace us, and with such a level of drama that becoming a cynic appears to be the only thing you can do to stay sane.

So, if sama says this is going to be totally revolutionary for months, then uploads a Death Star reference the night before and then when they show it off the tech is not as good as proposed, laughter is the only logical conclusion.

Re: GPT-5

#307

Post by mettamage »

mrcwinn wrote: post #300

I know HN isn’t the place to go for positive, uplifting commentary or optimism about technology - but I am truly excited for this release and grateful to all the team members who made it possible. What a great time to be alive.

Thanks after the sea of negative comments I needed to read this, haha.

I love HN though, it's all good.

Re: GPT-5

#309

Post by carabiner »

kybernetikos wrote: post #184

ChatGPT5 in this demo: > For an airplane wing (airfoil), the top surface is curved and the bottom is flatter. When the wing moves forward: > * Air over the top has to travel farther in the same amount of time -> it moves faster -> pressure on the top decreases. > * Air underneath moves slower -> pressure underneath is higher > * The presure difference creates an upward force - lift Isn't that explanation of why wings…

Holy shit that is wrong. That's what happens when you get software, ML engineers who think they know everything.

Re: GPT-5

#310

Post by edwinarbus »

mtlynch wrote: post #74

What's going on with their SWE bench graph?[0] GPT-5 non-thinking is labeled 52.8% accuracy, but o3 is shown as a much shorter bar, yet it's labeled 69.1%. And 4o is an identical bar to o3, but it's labeled 30.8%... [0] https://i.postimg.cc/DzkZZLry/y-axis.png

cross-posting:

https://x.com/sama/status/1953513280594751495 "wow a mega chart screwup from us earlier--wen GPT-6?! correct on the blog though."

blog: https://openai.com/index/introducing-gpt-5/

Post reply on HN