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

411–420 of 1001 posts

Re: GPT-4.5

#411

Post by sureIy »

sebastiennight wrote: post #37

It is interesting that they are focusing a large part of this release on the model having a higher "EQ" (Emotional Quotient). We're far from the days of "this is not a person, we do not want to make it addictive" and getting a firm foot on the territory of "here's your new AI friend". This is very visible in the example comparing 4o with 4.5 when the user is complaining about failing a test, where 4o's response is wh…

I don't know if I fully agree. The input clearly shows the need for emotional support more than "how do I pass this test?" The answer by 4o is comical even if you know you're talking to a machine.

It reminds me of the advice to "not offer solutions when a woman talks about her problems, but just listen."

Re: GPT-4.5

#412

Post by feznyng »

i_love_retros wrote: post #244

Anyone really finding ai useful for coding? I'm finding it to make things up, get things wrong, ignore things I ask. Def not worried about losing my job to it.

Really great for quickly building features but you have to be careful about how much context you provide i.e. spoonfeed it exactly the methods, classes, files it needs to do whatever you're asking for (especially in a large codebase). And when it seems to get confused, reset history to free up the context window.

That being said there are definite areas where it shines (cookie cutter UI) and places where it struggles. It's really good at one-shotting React components and Flutter widgets but it tends to struggle with complicated business logic like sync engines. More straightforward backend stuff like CRUD endpoints are definitely doable.

Re: GPT-4.5

#414

Post by alexashka »

crazygringo wrote: post #330
nyc_data_geek1 wrote: post #269

Earlier 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…

I heard this exact argument about blockchains.

Or has that been a success with tons of productive uses in your opinion?

At some point, I'd like to hear more than 'trust me bro, it'll be great' when we use up non-trivial amounts of finite resources to try these 'things'.

Re: GPT-4.5

#415

Post by svnt »

dgfitz wrote: post #390
lechatonnoir wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Words have valence, and valence reflects the state of emotional being of the user. This model appears to understand that better and responds like it’s in a therapeutic conversation and not composing an essay or article.

Perhaps they are/were going for stealth therapy-bot with this.

Re: GPT-4.5

#416

Post by dminik »

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…

They keep saying this about crypto too and yet there's still no legitimate use in sight.

Re: GPT-4.5

#417

Post by joe_the_user »

simonw wrote: post #342

I got gpt-4.5-preview to summarize this discussion thread so far (at 324 comments): hn-summary.sh 43197872 -m gpt-4.5-preview Using this script: https://til.simonwillison.net/llms/claude-hacker-news-themes... Here's the result: https://gist.github.com/simonw/5e9f5e94ac8840f698c280293d399... It took 25797 input tokens and 1225 input tokens, for a total cost (calculated using https://tools.simonwillison.net/llm-prices…

The headline and section: "Dystopian and Social Concerns about AI Features" are interesting. It's roughly true... but somehow that broad statement seems minimize the point discussed.

I'd headline that thread as "Concerns about output tone". There were comments about dystopian implications of tone, marketing implications of tone and implementation issues of tone.

Of course, that I can comment about the fine-points of an AI summary shows it's made progress. But there's a lot riding on how much progress these things can make and what sort. So it's still worth looking at.

Re: GPT-4.5

#418

Post by jstummbillig »

eightysixfour wrote: post #115

Seeing OpenAI and Anthropic go different routes here is interesting. It is worth moving past the initial knee jerk reaction of this model being unimpressive and some of the comments about "they spent a massive amount of money and had to ship something for it..." * Anthropic appears to be making a bet that a single paradigm (reasoning) can create a model which is excellent for all use cases. * OpenAI seems to be betti…

It can never be just reasoning, right? Reasoning is the multiplier on some base model, and surely no amount of reasoning on top of something like gpt-2 will get you o1.

This model is too expensive right now, but as compute gets cheaper — and we have to keep in mind, that it will — having a better base to multiply with will enable things that just more thinking won't.

Re: GPT-4.5

#420

Post by throwaway314155 »

kristianp wrote: post #373
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…

How do the two versions match so closely? They have the same content in each paragraph, just worded slightly differently. I wouldn't expect them to write paragraphs that match in size and position like that.

If you use the "retry" functionality in ChatGPT enough, you will notice this happens basically all the time.
Post reply on HN