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

GPT-4.5

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 1001 posts

Re: GPT-4.5

#321

Post by nyrikki »

crazygringo wrote: post #258
swatcoder wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We look forward to learning more about its strengths, capabilities, and potential applications in real-world settings. If GPT‑4.5 delivers unique value for your use case, your feedback (opens in a new window) will play an important role in guiding our decision. "We don't really know what this is good for, but spent a lot of money and time making it and are under intense pressure to announce new things right now. If…

> We don't really know what this is good for Oh come on. Think how long of a gap there was between the first microcomputer and VisiCalc. Or between the start of the internet and social networking. First of all, it's going to take us 10 years to figure out how to use LLM's to their full productive potential. And second of all, it's going to take us collectively a long time to also figure out how much accuracy is neces…

The TRS-80, Apple ][, and PET all came out in 1977, VisiCalc was released in 1979.

Usenet, Bitnet, IRC, BBSs all predated the commercial internet, which are all forms of Online social networks.

Re: GPT-4.5

#322

Post by bloomingkales »

EA-3167 wrote: post #184
swatcoder wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We look forward to learning more about its strengths, capabilities, and potential applications in real-world settings. If GPT‑4.5 delivers unique value for your use case, your feedback (opens in a new window) will play an important role in guiding our decision. "We don't really know what this is good for, but spent a lot of money and time making it and are under intense pressure to announce new things right now. If…

Maybe if they build a few more data centers, they'll be able to construct their machine god. Just a few more dedicated power plants, a lake or two, a few hundred billion more and they'll crack this thing wide open. And maybe Tesla is going to deliver truly full self driving tech any day now. And Star Citizen will prove to have been worth it along along, and Bitcoin will rain from the heavens. It's very difficult to r…

Star Citizen is a working model of how to do UBI. That entire staff of a thousand people is the test case.

Re: GPT-4.5

#323

Post by ren_engineer »

zaptrem wrote: post #26

GPT 4.5 pricing is insane: Price Input: $75.00 / 1M tokens Cached input: $37.50 / 1M tokens Output: $150.00 / 1M tokens GPT 4o pricing for comparison: Price Input: $2.50 / 1M tokens Cached input: $1.25 / 1M tokens Output: $10.00 / 1M tokens It sounds like it's so expensive and the difference in usefulness is so lacking(?) they're not even gonna keep serving it in the API for long: > GPT‑4.5 is a very large and comput…

hyperscalers in shambles, no clue why they even released this other than the fact they didn't want to admit they wasted an absurd amount of money for no reason

Re: GPT-4.5

#324

Post by nyarlathotep_ »

ur-whale wrote: post #79
zaptrem wrote: post #26

GPT 4.5 pricing is insane: Price Input: $75.00 / 1M tokens Cached input: $37.50 / 1M tokens Output: $150.00 / 1M tokens GPT 4o pricing for comparison: Price Input: $2.50 / 1M tokens Cached input: $1.25 / 1M tokens Output: $10.00 / 1M tokens It sounds like it's so expensive and the difference in usefulness is so lacking(?) they're not even gonna keep serving it in the API for long: > GPT‑4.5 is a very large and comput…

AI as it stands in 2025 is an amazing technology, but it is not a product at all . As a result, OpenAI simply does not have a business model, even if they are trying to convince the world that they do. My bet is that they're currently burning through other people's capital at an amazing rate, but that they are light-years from profitability They are also being chased by fierce competition and OpenSource which is very…

> AI as it stands in 2025 is an amazing technology, but it is not a product at all.

Here I'm assuming "AI" to mean what's broadly called Generative AI (LLMs, photo, video generation)

I genuinely am struggling to see what the product is too.

The code assistant use cases are really impressive across the board (and I'm someone who was vocally against them less than a year ago), and I pay for Github CoPilot (for now) but I can't think of any offering otherwise to dispute your claim.

It seems like companies are desperate to find a market fit, and shoving the words "agentic" everywhere doesn't inspire confidence.

Here's the thing: I remember people lining up around the block for iPhone releases, XBox launches, hell even Grand Theft Auto midnight releases.

Is there a market of people clamoring to use/get anything GenAI related?

If any/all LLM services went down tonight, what's the impact? Kids do their own homework?

JavaScript programmers have to remember how to write React components?

Compare that with Google Maps disappearing, or similar.

LLMs are in a position where they're forced onto people and most frankly aren't that interested. Did anyone ASK for Microsoft throwing some Copilot things all over their operating system? Does anyone want Apple Intelligence, really?

Re: GPT-4.5

#325

Post by jug »

virgildotcodes wrote: post #33

That presentation was super underwhelming. We got to watch them compare… the vibes? … of 4.5 vs o1. No wonder Sam wasn’t part of the presentation.

It should’ve just been a web launch without video.

Re: GPT-4.5

#326

Post by zaptrem »

jodrellblank wrote: post #196
swatcoder wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We look forward to learning more about its strengths, capabilities, and potential applications in real-world settings. If GPT‑4.5 delivers unique value for your use case, your feedback (opens in a new window) will play an important role in guiding our decision. "We don't really know what this is good for, but spent a lot of money and time making it and are under intense pressure to announce new things right now. If…

> "Early testing shows that interacting with GPT‑4.5 feels more natural. Its broader knowledge base, improved ability to follow user intent, and greater “EQ” make it useful for tasks like improving writing, programming, and solving practical problems. We also expect it to hallucinate less." "Early testing doesn't show that it hallucinates less, but we expect that putting that sentence nearby will lead you to draw a c…

This seems like it should be attributed to better post training, not a bigger model.

Re: GPT-4.5

#327

Post by amarcheschi »

turnsout wrote: post #292
tmaly wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would like to see a humor test. So far, I have not seen any model response that has made me laugh.

If you like absurdist humor, go into the OpenAI playground, select 3.5-Turbo, and dial up the temperature to the point where the output devolves into garbled text after 500 tokens or so. The first ~200 tokens are in the freaking sweet spot of humor.

Could someone post an example?

Re: GPT-4.5

#328

Post by kridsdale3 »

Terr_ wrote: post #218
riwsky wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Said the quiet part out loud! Or as we say these days, “transparently exposed the chain of thought tokens”.

"I knew the dame was trouble the moment she walked into my office." "Uh... excuse me, Detective Nick Danger? I'd like to retain your services." "I waited for her to get the the point." "Detective, who are you talking to?" "I didn't want to deal with a client that was hearing voices, but money was tight and the rent was due. I pondered my next move." "Mr. Danger, are you... narrating out loud?" "Damn! My internal chai…

I don't know if it was you or someone else who made pretty much the same point a few days ago. But I still like it. It makes the whole thing a lot more fun.

Re: GPT-4.5

#329

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

zaptrem wrote: post #26

GPT 4.5 pricing is insane: Price Input: $75.00 / 1M tokens Cached input: $37.50 / 1M tokens Output: $150.00 / 1M tokens GPT 4o pricing for comparison: Price Input: $2.50 / 1M tokens Cached input: $1.25 / 1M tokens Output: $10.00 / 1M tokens It sounds like it's so expensive and the difference in usefulness is so lacking(?) they're not even gonna keep serving it in the API for long: > GPT‑4.5 is a very large and comput…

The price is obviously 15-30x that of 4o, but I'd just posit that there are some use cases where it may make sense. It probably doesn't make sense for the "open-ended consumer facing chatbot" use case, but for other use cases that are fewer and higher value in nature, it could if it's abilities are considerably better than 4o.

For example, there are now a bunch of vendors that sell "respond to RFP" AI products. The number of RFPs that any sales organization responds to is probably no more than a couple a week, but it's a very time-consuming, laborious process. But the payoff is obviously very high if a response results in a closed sale. So here paying 30x for marginally better performance makes perfect sense.

I can think of a number of similar "high value, relatively low occurrence" use cases like this where the pricing may not be a big hindrance.

Re: GPT-4.5

#330

Post by crazygringo »

nyc_data_geek1 wrote: post #269
crazygringo wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We don't really know what this is good for Oh come on. Think how long of a gap there was between the first microcomputer and VisiCalc. Or between the start of the internet and social networking. First of all, it's going to take us 10 years to figure out how to use LLM's to their full productive potential. And second of all, it's going to take us collectively a long time to also figure out how much accuracy is neces…

The Internet had plenty of very productive use cases before social networking, even from its most nascent origins. Spending billions building something on the assumption that someone else will figure out what it's good for, is not good business.

And LLM's already have tons of productive uses. The biggest ones are probably still waiting, though.

But this is about one particular price/performance ratio.

You need to build things before you can see how the market responds. You say it's "not good business" but that's entirely wrong. It's excellent business. It's the only way to go about it, in fact.

Finding product-market fit is a process. Companies aren't omniscient.

Post reply on HN