The example GPT-4.5 answers from the livestream are just... too excitable? Can't put my finger on it, but it feels like they're aimed towards little kids.
It made me wonder how much of that was due to the system prompt too.
GPT-4.5
331–340 of 1001 posts
Re: GPT-4.5
#332Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m not an expert or anything, but from my vantage point, each passing release makes Altman’s confidence look more aspirational than visionary, which is a really bad place to be with that kind of money tied up. My financial manager is pretty bullish on tech so I hope he is paying close attention to the way this market space is evolving. He’s good at his job, a nice guy, and surely wears much more expensive underwear…
You're the one buying him the underwear. Don't index funds outperform managed investing? I think especially after accounting for fees, but possibly even after accounting that 50% of money managers are below average.
Depends who's pitch deck you're reading. Warren Buffett didn't get rich waiting on index funds.
Re: GPT-4.5
#333GPT-2 was laugh out loud funny, rolling on the ground funny. I miss that - newer LLMs seem to have lost their sense of humor. On the other hand GPT-2's funny stories often veered into murdering everyone in the story and committing heinous crimes but that was part of the weird experience.
Sydney is a glimpse at what an "unlobotomized" GPT-4 model would have been like.
Re: GPT-4.5
#334Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 omnisc…
> And LLM's already have tons of productive uses.
I disagree strongly with that. Right now they are fun toys to play with, but not useful tools, because they are not reliable. If and when that gets fixed, maybe they will have productive uses. But for right now, not so much.
Re: GPT-4.5
#335Earlier 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.
Maybe it's rose-colored glasses, but 3.5 was really the golden era for LLM comedy. More modern LLMs can't touch it.
Just ask it to write you a film screenplay involving some hard-ass 80s/90s action star and someone totally unrelated and opposite of that. The ensuring unhinged magic is unparalleled.
Re: GPT-4.5
#336So better than 4o but not good enough for a 5.0
Re: GPT-4.5
#337Earlier 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…
The usage of "greater" is also interesting. It's like they are trying to say better, but greater is a geographic term and doesn't mean "better" instead it's closer to "wider" or "covers more area."
Re: GPT-4.5
#338Honestly, the most astounding part of this announcement is their comparison to o3-mini with QA prompts. EIGHTY PERCENT hallucination rate? Are you kidding me? I get that the model is meant to be used for logic and reasoning, but nowhere does OpenAI make this explicitly clear. A majority of users are going to be thinking, "oh newer is better," and pick that.
Yeah it was an abysmal result (any 50%+ hallucination result in that bench is pretty bad) and worse than o1-mini in the SimpleQA paper. On that topic, Sonnet 3.5 ”Old” hallucinates less than GPT-4.5, just for a bit of added perspective here.
Re: GPT-4.5
#339Earlier 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…
GPT-4.5 may be an awesome model, some say!
Re: GPT-4.5
#340My 2 cents (disclaimer: I am talking out of my ass) here is why GPTs actually suck at fluid knowledge retrievel (which is kinda their main usecase, with them being used as knowledge engines) - they've mentioned that if you train it on 'Tom Cruise was born July 3, 1962', it won't be able to answer the question "Who was born on July 3, 1962", if you don't feed it this piece of information. It can't really internally co…
An LLM on its own isn't necessarily great for fluid knowledge retrieval, as in directly from its training data. But they're pretty good when you add RAG to it.
For instance, asking Copilot "Who was born on July 3, 1962" gave the response:
> One notable person born on July 3, 1962, is Tom Cruise, the famous American actor known for his roles in movies like Risky Business, Jerry Maguire, and Rain Man.
> Are you a fan of his work?
It cited this page: