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

Retiring GPT-4o, GPT-4.1, GPT-4.1 mini, and OpenAI o4-mini in ChatGPT

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 433 posts

Re: Retiring GPT-4o, GPT-4.1, GPT-4.1 mini, and OpenAI o4-mini in ChatGPT

#381

Post by SomeUserName432 »

azuanrb wrote: post #278

It’s interesting that many comments mention switching back to Claude. I’m on the opposite end, as I’ve been quite happy with ChatGPT recently. Anthropic clearly changed something after December last year. My Pro plan is barely usable now, even when using only Sonnet. I frequently hit the weekly limit, which never happened before. In contrast, ChatGPT has been very generous with usage on their plan. Another pattern I’…

> Another pattern I’m noticing is strong advocacy for Opus

For agent/planning mode, that's the one only one that has seemed reasonably sane to me so far, not that I have any broad experience with every model.

Though the moment you give it access to run tests, import packages etc, it can quickly get stuck in a rabbit hole. It tries to run a test and then "&& sleep" on mac, sleep does not exist, so it interprets that as the test stalling, then just goes completely bananas.

It really lacks the "ok I'm a bit stuck, can you help me out a bit here?" prompt. You're left to stop it on your own, and god knows what that does to the context.

Re: Retiring GPT-4o, GPT-4.1, GPT-4.1 mini, and OpenAI o4-mini in ChatGPT

#382

Post by rglynn »

azuanrb wrote: post #278

It’s interesting that many comments mention switching back to Claude. I’m on the opposite end, as I’ve been quite happy with ChatGPT recently. Anthropic clearly changed something after December last year. My Pro plan is barely usable now, even when using only Sonnet. I frequently hit the weekly limit, which never happened before. In contrast, ChatGPT has been very generous with usage on their plan. Another pattern I’…

IME 5.2-codex (high) is not as good as Opus 4.5, xhigh is equivalent but also consumes quota at a higher rate (much like Opus).

Re: Retiring GPT-4o, GPT-4.1, GPT-4.1 mini, and OpenAI o4-mini in ChatGPT

#384

Post by [deleted] »

InfinityByTen wrote: post #329
azuanrb wrote: post #278

It’s interesting that many comments mention switching back to Claude. I’m on the opposite end, as I’ve been quite happy with ChatGPT recently. Anthropic clearly changed something after December last year. My Pro plan is barely usable now, even when using only Sonnet. I frequently hit the weekly limit, which never happened before. In contrast, ChatGPT has been very generous with usage on their plan. Another pattern I’…

Well, claude at least was successful in getting me to pay. It became utterly annoying that I would hit the limit just with a couple of follow ups to my long running discussion and made me wait for a few hours. So it worked, but I didn't happily pay. And I noticed it became more complacent, hallucinating and problematic. I might consider trying out ChatGPTs newer models again. Coding and technical projects didn't feel…

[deleted]

Re: Retiring GPT-4o, GPT-4.1, GPT-4.1 mini, and OpenAI o4-mini in ChatGPT

#385

Post by Terretta »

johnsmith1840 wrote: post #212
sundarurfriend wrote: post #72

ChatGPT 5.2 has been a good motivator for me to try out other LLMs because of how bad it is. Both 5.1 and 5.2 have been downgrades in terms of instruction following and accuracy, but 5.2 especially so. The upside is that that's had me using Claude much more, and I like a lot of things about it, both in terms of UI and the answers. It's also gotten me more serious about running local models. So, thank you OpenAI, for…

I left my chatgpt pro subscription when they removed the true deep thinkibg methods. Mostly because how massively varied their releases are. Each one required big changes to how I use and work with it. Claude is perfect in this sense all their models feel roughly the same just smarter so my workflow is always the same.

> all their models feel roughly the same just smarter

Substantial "applied outcomes" regression from 3.7 to 4 but they got right on fixing that.

Re: Retiring GPT-4o, GPT-4.1, GPT-4.1 mini, and OpenAI o4-mini in ChatGPT

#386

Post by Terretta »

fpgaminer wrote: post #152
arrowsmith wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about 5.1 do you prefer over 5.2?

As far as I can tell 5.2 is the stronger model on paper, but it's been optimized to think less and do less web searches. I daily drive Thinking variants, not Auto or Instant, and usually want the _right_ answer even if it takes a minute. 5.1 does a very good job of defensively web searching, which avoids almost all of its hallucinations and keeps docs/APIs/UIs/etc up-to-date. 5.2 will instead often not think at all,…

This is a terrible thing to say out loud*, but, in all such cases I'd rather just give them the more money to do the better answers.

It boggles the mind that "wrong answers only" is no longer just a meme, it's considered a valid cost management strategy in AI.

* Because if they realize we're out here, they'll price discriminate, charging extra for right answers.

Re: Retiring GPT-4o, GPT-4.1, GPT-4.1 mini, and OpenAI o4-mini in ChatGPT

#387

Post by Hard_Space »

kouteiheika wrote: post #265
Hard_Space wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you respond in 1-3 sentences" becomes long bulleted lists and multiple paragraphs very quickly This is why my heart sank this morning. I have spent over a year training 4.0 to just about be helpful enough to get me an extra 1-2 hours a day of productivity. From experimentation, I can see no hope of reproducing that with 5x, and even 5x admits as much to me, when I discussed it with them today: > Prolixity is a side…

> This is why my heart sank this morning. I have spent over a year training 4.0 to just about be helpful enough to get me an extra 1-2 hours a day of productivity. Maybe you should consider basing your workflows on open-weight models instead? Unlike proprietary API-only models no one can take these away from you.

I have considered it, and it is still on the docket. I have a local 3090 dedicated to ML. Would be a fascinating and potentially really useful project, but as a freelancer, it would cost a lot to give it the time it needs.

Re: Retiring GPT-4o, GPT-4.1, GPT-4.1 mini, and OpenAI o4-mini in ChatGPT

#388

Post by palmotea »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #375
palmotea wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't object to alcohol being tolerated. But I do think that distinguishing it from other drugs is odd. The point I was making is that it's not odd, unless you're thinking about human culture wrong (e.g. like its somehow weird that broad rules have exceptions). > Particularly when the primary reason given for regulating other drugs is their addictiveness which alcohol shares. One, not all addictive drugs are equa…

No? I don't never said (and don't believe) any of that. I don't think the legislative inconsistency is odd. As you rightly point out it's perfectly normal for rules to be inconsistent due to (among other things) shared culture. The former exists to serve the latter after all, not the other way around. What I said I find odd is the way people refuse to plainly call alcohol what it is. You can refer to it as a drug yet…

> What I said I find odd is the way people refuse to plainly call alcohol what it is. You can refer to it as a drug yet still support it being legal. The cognitive inconsistency (ie the refusal to admit that it is a drug) is what I find odd.

Maybe the confusion is yours? You think the category is "drug" but it's really more like "taboo drug."

> I also find it odd that we treat substances that the data clearly indicates are less harmful than alcohol as though they were worse. We have alcohol staring us in the face as a counterexample to the claim that such laws are necessary. I think that avoidance of this observation can largely explain the apparent widespread unwillingness to refer to alcohol as a drug.

I think you missed a pretty key point: "shared cultural knowledge about how to manage the substance, including rituals for use (this is the big one)." In the West, that exists for alcohol, but not really for anything else. People know how it works and what it does, can recognize its use, have practices for its safe use that work for (most) people (e.g. drink in certain social settings), and are at least somewhat familiar with usage failure modes. A "less harmful" thing that you don't know how to use safely can be more harmful than a "more harmful" thing you know how to use safely. None of this is "data driven," nor should it be.

Re: Retiring GPT-4o, GPT-4.1, GPT-4.1 mini, and OpenAI o4-mini in ChatGPT

#389

Post by sejje »

Gud wrote: post #229
thayne wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It says what to do if you are over 18, but thinks you are under 18. But what if it identifies someone under 18 as being older? And what if you are over 18, but don't want to be exposed to that "adult" content? > Viral challenges that could push risky or harmful behavior And > Content that promotes extreme beauty standards, unhealthy dieting, or body shaming Seem dangerous regardless of age.

What are these extremes beauty standards being promoted? Because it seems to me large swaths of the population need some beauty standards

Yes, but you're not allowed to say that to them.

They are victimized by the fact that models are attractive, and that is "unrealistic," so they've been getting plus sized models etc.

The "extreme beauty standards" are basically just "healthy BMI."

Re: Retiring GPT-4o, GPT-4.1, GPT-4.1 mini, and OpenAI o4-mini in ChatGPT

#390

Post by sejje »

ecshafer wrote: post #349
chilmers wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are many companies making money off alcohol addiction, video game addiction, porn addiction, food addiction, etc. Should we outlaw all these things? Should we regulate them and try to make them safe? If we can do that for them, can't we do it for AI sex chat?

> There are many companies making money off alcohol addiction, video game addiction, porn addiction, food addiction, etc. Should we outlaw all these things? Yes

"ban number munchers"
Post reply on HN