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

GPT-5.5

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 1001 posts

Re: GPT-5.5

#411

Post by necubi »

jetrink wrote: post #387
GistNoesis wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it awful ? After 5.5 versions it still can't draw a basic bike frame. How is the front wheel supposed to turn sideways ?

I feel like if I attempted this, the bike frame would look fine and everything else would be completely unrecognizable. After all, a basic bike frame is just straight lines arranged in a fairly simple shape. It's really surprising that models find it so difficult, but they can make a pelican with panache.

Humans are also famously bad at drawing bicycles from memory https://www.gianlucagimini.it/portfolio-item/velocipedia/

Re: GPT-5.5

#412

Post by gpm »

lxgr wrote: post #400
gpm wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I for one delight in bicycles where neither wheel can turn! It continues to amaze me that these models that definitely know what bicycle geometry actually looks like somewhere in their weights produces such implausibly bad geometry. Also mildly interesting, and generally consistent with my experience with LLMs, that it produced the same obvious geometry issue both times.

> It continues to amaze me that these models that definitely know what bicycle geometry actually looks like somewhere in their weights produces such implausibly bad geometry. I feel like the main problem for the models is that they can't actually look at the visual output produced by their SVG and iterate. I'm almost willing to bet that if they could, they'd absolutely nail it at this point. Imagine designing an SVG…

> Imagine designing an SVG yourself without being able to ever look outside the XML editor!

I honestly think I could do much better on the bicycle without looking at the output (with some assistance for SVG syntax which I definitely don't know), just as someone who rides them and generally knows what the parts are.

I'd do worse at the pelicans though.

Re: GPT-5.5

#413

Post by nlawalker »

jetrink wrote: post #387
GistNoesis wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it awful ? After 5.5 versions it still can't draw a basic bike frame. How is the front wheel supposed to turn sideways ?

I feel like if I attempted this, the bike frame would look fine and everything else would be completely unrecognizable. After all, a basic bike frame is just straight lines arranged in a fairly simple shape. It's really surprising that models find it so difficult, but they can make a pelican with panache.

> a fairly simple shape

Bike frames are very hard to draw unless you've already consciously internalized the basic shape, see https://www.booooooom.com/2016/05/09/bicycles-built-based-on...

Re: GPT-5.5

#414

Post by krackers »

lambdas wrote: post #277
butlike wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This brings up an interesting philosophical point: say we get to AGI... who's to say it won't just be a super smart underachiever-type? "Hey AGI, how's that cure for cancer coming?" "Oh it's done just gotta...formalize it you know. Big rollout and all that..." I would find it divinely funny if we "got there" with AGI and it was just a complete slacker. Hard to justify leaving it on, but too important to turn it off.

Nothing a little digital lisdexamfetamine won’t solve

Reminds me of https://github.com/inanna-malick/metacog

Re: GPT-5.5

#415

Post by dannyw »

egorfine wrote: post #246

> We are releasing GPT‑5.5 with our strongest set of safeguards to date ... > we’re deploying stricter classifiers for potential cyber risk which some users may find annoying initially So we should be expecting to not be able to check our own code for vulnerabilities, because inherently the model cannot know whether I'm feeding my code or someone else's.

Hopefully not, because checking your codebase for vulnerabilities is really valuable.

I hope it’s just limits on pentesting and stuff, and not for code analysis and review.

Re: GPT-5.5

#417

Post by jstummbillig »

_alternator_ wrote: post #330

> One engineer at NVIDIA who had early access to the model went as far as to say: "Losing access to GPT‑5.5 feels like I've had a limb amputated.” This quote is more sinister than I think was intended; it likely applies to all frontier coding models. As they get better, we quickly come to rely on them for coding. It's like playing a game on God Mode. Engineers become dependent; it's truly addictive. This matches my o…

> This quote is more sinister than I think was intended; it likely applies to all frontier coding models. As they get better, we quickly come to rely on them for coding. It's like playing a game on God Mode. Engineers become dependent; it's truly addictive.

What's the worst potential outcome, assuming that all models get better, more efficient and more abundant (which seems to be the current trend)? The goal of engineering has always been to build better things, not to make it harder.

Re: GPT-5.5

#418

Post by jedisct1 »

GPT-5.4 is already an incredible model for code reviews and security audits with the swival.dev /audit command.

The fact that GPT-5.5 is apparently even better at long-running tasks is very exciting. I don’t have access to it yet, but I’m really looking forward to trying it.

Re: GPT-5.5

#419

Post by GodelNumbering »

ejpir wrote: post #401
toephu2 wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it? There are 5 other models near ~80% and it was achieved in March... which in AI-world seems like a century ago. https://www.tbench.ai/leaderboard/terminal-bench/2.0

those are not verified. I've tried forgecode and I cannot believe they didn't do something to influence the benchmarks

Yup, they were found to be sneaking the answer key using agents.md

https://debugml.github.io/cheating-agents/#sneaking-the-answ...

Re: GPT-5.5

#420

Post by some-guy »

i_love_retros wrote: post #405
_alternator_ wrote: post #330

> One engineer at NVIDIA who had early access to the model went as far as to say: "Losing access to GPT‑5.5 feels like I've had a limb amputated.” This quote is more sinister than I think was intended; it likely applies to all frontier coding models. As they get better, we quickly come to rely on them for coding. It's like playing a game on God Mode. Engineers become dependent; it's truly addictive. This matches my o…

It makes me uneasy because my role now, which is prompting copilot, isn't worth my salary.

I disagree. The amount of slop I need to code review has only increased, and the quality of the models doesn’t seem to be helping.

It still takes a good engineer to filter out what is slop and what isn’t. Ultimately that human problem will still require somebody to say no.

Post reply on HN