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

381–390 of 1001 posts

Re: GPT-4.5

#381

Post by infinet »

YetAnotherNick wrote: post #180
infinet wrote: post #112

Can it be self-hosted? Many institutions and organizations are hesitant to use AI because concerns of data leaking over chatbot. Open models, on the other hand, can be self-hosted. There is a deepseek arm race in other part of the world. Universities are racing to host their own deepseek. Hospitals, large businesses, local governments, even courts are deploying or showing interest in self-hosting deepseek.

Do you know of any university that host Deepseek?

> Do you know of any university that host Deepseek?

https://chat.zju.edu.cn

https://chat.sjtu.edu.cn

https://chat.ecnu.edu.cn/html/

To list a few. There are of course many more in China. I won't be surprised if universities in other countries also self-hosting.

Re: GPT-4.5

#382

Post by kridsdale3 »

MangoCoffee wrote: post #235
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…

one of the problem seem to be there's no alternative to Nvidia ecosystem. (the gpu + CUDA).

May I introduce you to Gemini 2.0

Re: GPT-4.5

#383

Post by senordevnyc »

harlanlewis wrote: post #53
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 really is eye watering. At a glance, my first impression is this is something like Llama 3.1 405B, where the primary value may be realized in generating high quality synthetic data for training rather than direct use. I keep a little google spreadsheet with some charts to help visualize the landscape at a glance in terms of capability/price/throughput, bringing in the various index scores as they become ava…

Hey, just FYI, I pasted your url from the spreadsheet title into Safari on macOS and got an SSL warning. Unfortunately I clicked through and now it works, so not sure what the exact cause looked like.

Re: GPT-4.5

#384

Post by fsndz »

FpUser wrote: post #365
fsndz wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's so over, pretraining is ngmi. maybe sam Altman was wrong after all ? https://www.lycee.ai/blog/why-sam-altman-is-wrong

>"I also agree with researchers like Yann LeCun or François Chollet that deep learning doesn't allow models to generalize properly to out-of-distribution data—and that is precisely what we need to build artificial general intelligence." I think "generalize properly to out-of-distribution data" is too weak of criteria for general intelligence (GI). GI model should be able to get interested about some particular area,…

most humans are generally intelligent but can't do what you just said AGI should do...

Re: GPT-4.5

#385

Post by [deleted] »

chefandy wrote: post #204
igor47 wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

He earns his undies. My returns are almost always modestly above index fund returns after his fees, though like last quarter, he’s very upfront when they’re not. He has good advice for pulling back when things are uncertain. I’m happy to delegate that to him.

[deleted]

Re: GPT-4.5

#386

Post by stavros »

usaar333 wrote: post #191
serjester wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suppose this was their final hurrah after two failed attempts at training GPT-5 with the traditional pre-training paradigm. Just confirms reasoning models are the only way forward.

For OpenAI perhaps? Sonnet 3.7 without extended thinking is quite strong. Swe-bench scores tie o3

How do you read those scores? I wanted to see how well 3.7 with thinking did, but I can't even read that table.

Re: GPT-4.5

#387

Post by lostmsu »

wewewedxfgdf wrote: post #262

GPT-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.

https://hn-wrapped.kadoa.com/wewewedxfgdf

Re: GPT-4.5

#388

Post by kumarm »

jampa wrote: post #167

First impression of GPT-4.5: 1. It is very very slow, for some applications where you want real time interactions is just not viable, the text attached below took 7s to generate with 4o, but 46s with GPT4.5 2. The style it writes is way better: it keeps the tone you ask and makes better improvements on the flow. One of my biggest complaints with 4o is that you want for your content to be more casual and accessible bu…

Thank you. This is the best example of comparison I have seen so far.

Re: GPT-4.5

#389

Post by vhiremath4 »

I cancelled my ChatGPT subscription today in favor of using Grok. It’s literally the difference between me never using ChatGPT to using Grok all the time, and the only way I can explain it is twofold:

1. The output from Grok doesn’t feel constrained. I don’t know how much of this is the marketing pitch of it “not being woke”, but I feel it in its answers. It never tells me it’s not going to return a result or sugarcoats some analysis it found from Reddit that’s less than savory.

2. Speed. Jesus Christ ChatGPT has gotten so slow.

Can’t wait to pay for Grok. Can’t believe I’m here. I’m usually a big proponent of just sticking with the thing that’s the most popular when it comes to technology, but that’s not panning out this time around.

Re: GPT-4.5

#390

Post by dgfitz »

lechatonnoir wrote: post #363
justspacethings wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

I'm all for skepticism of capabilities and cynicism about corporate messaging, but I really don't think there's an interpretation of the word "greater" in this context" that doesn't mean "higher" and "better".

I think the trick is observing what is “better” in this model. EQ is supposed to be “better” than 4o, according to the prose. However, how can an LLM have emotional-anything? LLMs are a regurgitation machine, emotion has nothing to do with anything.
Post reply on HN