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

GPT-5.1: A smarter, more conversational ChatGPT

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–450 of 766 posts

Re: GPT-5.1: A smarter, more conversational ChatGPT

#441

Post by intended »

Quarrel wrote: post #440
pbalau wrote: post #427

> what romanian football player won the premier league > The only Romanian football player to have won the English Premier League (as of 2025) is Florin Andone, but wait — actually, that’s incorrect; he never won the league. > ... > No Romanian footballer has ever won the Premier League (as of 2025). Yes, this is what we needed, more "conversational" ChatGPT... Let alone the fact the answer is wrong.

My worry is that they're training it on Q&A from the general public now, and that this tone, and more specifically, how obsequious it can be, is exactly what the general public want. Most of the time, I suspect, people are using it like wikipedia, but with a shortcut to cut through to the real question they want answered; and unfortunately they don't know if it is right or wrong, they just want to be told how bright…

We know they are using it like search - there’s a jigsaw paper around this.

Re: GPT-5.1: A smarter, more conversational ChatGPT

#442

Post by mycall »

Sharlin wrote: post #439
amelius wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe you used "Don't give me nonsense" in your custom system prompt?

An LLM should never refer to the user's "style" prompt like that. It should function as the model's personality, not something the user asked it to do or be like.

System prompt is for multi-client/agent applications, so if you wish to fix something for everyone, that is the right place to put it.

Re: GPT-5.1: A smarter, more conversational ChatGPT

#443

Post by intended »

I find the comments interesting, in that we discuss factual accuracy and obsequiousness in the same breath.

Is it just me, or am I misreading the conversations ?

In my mind, these two are unrelated to each other.

One is a human trait, the other is an informational and inference issue.

There’s no actual way to go from one to the other. From more/less obsequiousness to more/less accuracy.

Re: GPT-5.1: A smarter, more conversational ChatGPT

#444

Post by A_D_E_P_T »

pbalau wrote: post #427

> what romanian football player won the premier league > The only Romanian football player to have won the English Premier League (as of 2025) is Florin Andone, but wait — actually, that’s incorrect; he never won the league. > ... > No Romanian footballer has ever won the Premier League (as of 2025). Yes, this is what we needed, more "conversational" ChatGPT... Let alone the fact the answer is wrong.

Which model did you use? With 5.1 Thinking, I get:

"Costel Pantilimon is the Romanian footballer who won the English Premier League.

"He did it twice with Manchester City, in the 2011–12 and 2013–14 seasons, earning a winner’s medal as a backup goalkeeper. ([Wikipedia][1])

URLs:

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costel_Pantilimon]

* [https://www.transfermarkt.com/costel-pantilimon/erfolge/spie...]

* [https://thefootballfaithful.com/worst-players-win-premier-le...

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costel_Pantilimon?utm_source=c... "Costel Pantilimon""

Re: GPT-5.1: A smarter, more conversational ChatGPT

#446

Post by subscribed »

DonaldPShimoda wrote: post #214
The_Rob wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Comparing LLM responses to heroine is insane.

I'm not saying they're equivalent; I'm saying that they're both dangerous, and I think taking the position that we shouldn't take any steps to prevent the danger because some people may end up thinking they "want" it is unreasonable.

No one sane uses baseline webui 'personality'. People use LLMs through specific, custom APIs, and more often than not they use fine tune models, that _assume personality_ defined by someone (be it user or service provider).

Look up Tavern AI character card.

I think you're fundamentally mistaken.

I agree that to some users use of the specific LLMs for the specific use cases might be harmful but saying (default AI 'personality') that web ui is dangerous is laughable.

Re: GPT-5.1: A smarter, more conversational ChatGPT

#448

Post by nottorp »

iagooar wrote: post #331

For the longest time I had been using GPT-5 Pro and Deep Research. Then I tried Gemini's 2.5 Pro Deep Research. And boy oh boy is Gemini superior. The results of Gemini go deep, are thoughtful and make sense. GPT-5's results feel like vomiting a lot of text that looks interesting on the surface, but has no real depth. I don't know what has happened, is GPT-5's Deep Research badly prompted? Or is Gemini's extensive se…

I don't know about Gemini pro super duper whatever, but the freely available Gemini is as sycophantic as ChatGPT, always congratulates you for being able to ask a question.

And worse, on every answer it offers to elaborate on related topics. To maintain engagement i suppose.

Re: GPT-5.1: A smarter, more conversational ChatGPT

#449

Post by exasperaited »

vintermann wrote: post #289
captainkrtek wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Id have more appreciation and trust in an llm that disagreed with me more and challenged my opinions or prior beliefs. The sycophancy drives me towards not trusting anything it says.

Google's search now has the annoying feature that a lot of searches which used to work fine now give a patronizing reply like "Unfortunately 'Haiti revolution persons' isn't a thing", or an explanation that "This is probably shorthand for [something completely wrong]"

That latter thing — where it just plain makes up a meaning and presents it as if it's real — is completely insane (and also presumably quite wasteful).

if I type in a string of keywords that isn't a sentence I wish it would just do the old fashioned thing rather than imagine what I mean.

Re: GPT-5.1: A smarter, more conversational ChatGPT

#450

Post by exasperaited »

crazygringo wrote: post #218
Grimblewald wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Care to share a prompt that works? I've given up on mainline offerings from google/oai etc. the reason being they're either sycophantic or so recalcitrant it'll raise your bloodpressure, you end up arguing over if the sky is in fact blue. Sure it pushes back but now instead of sycophanty you've got yourself some pathological naysayer, which is just marginally better, but interaction is still ultimately a waste of tim…

Sure: Please maintain a strictly objective and analytical tone. Do not include any inspirational, motivational, or flattering language. Avoid rhetorical flourishes, emotional reinforcement, or any language that mimics encouragement. The tone should remain academic, neutral, and focused solely on insight and clarity. Works like a charm for me. Only thing I can't get it to change is the last paragraph where it always t…

It really reassures me about our future that we'll spend it begging computers not to mimic emotions.
Post reply on HN