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

461–470 of 1001 posts

Re: GPT-4.5

#461

Post by [deleted] »

alyandon wrote: post #199
EA-3167 wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe if they build a few more data centers, they'll be able to construct their machine god. Just a few more dedicated power plants, a lake or two, a few hundred billion more and they'll crack this thing wide open. And maybe Tesla is going to deliver truly full self driving tech any day now. And Star Citizen will prove to have been worth it along along, and Bitcoin will rain from the heavens. It's very difficult to r…

And Star Citizen will prove to have been worth it along along Sounds like someone isn't happy with the 4.0 eternally incrementing "alpha" version release. :-D I keep checking in on SC every 6 months or so and still see the same old bugs. What a waste of potential. Fortunately, Elite Dangerous is enough of a space game to scratch my space game itch.

[deleted]

Re: GPT-4.5

#462

Post by tobias3 »

0x457 wrote: post #216
alyandon wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And Star Citizen will prove to have been worth it along along Sounds like someone isn't happy with the 4.0 eternally incrementing "alpha" version release. :-D I keep checking in on SC every 6 months or so and still see the same old bugs. What a waste of potential. Fortunately, Elite Dangerous is enough of a space game to scratch my space game itch.

To be fAir, SC is trying to do things that no one else done in a context of a single game. I applaud their dedication, but I won't be buying JPGs of a ship for 2k.

Give the same amount of money to a better team and you'd get a better (finished) game. So the allocation of capital is wrong in this case. People shouldn't pre-order stuff.

The misallocation of capital also applies to GPT-4.5/OpenAI at this point.

Re: GPT-4.5

#463

Post by yousif_123123 »

It's disappointing not to see comparisons to Sonnet 3.7. Also since o3-mini is ahead of o1, not sure why in the video they compared to o1.

gpt4 was way ahead of 3.5 when it came out. It's unfortunate that the first major gpt release since that is so underwhelming..

Re: GPT-4.5

#464

Post by aprilthird2021 »

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 think it's a good thing because, idk why, I just start tuning out after getting reams and reams of bullet points I'm already not super confident about the truthfulness of

Re: GPT-4.5

#465

Post by [deleted] »

chefandy wrote: post #273
Terr_ wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> each passing release makes Altman’s confidence look more aspirational than visionary As an LLM cynic, I feel that point passed long go, perhaps even before Altman claimed countries would start wars to conquer the territory around GPU datacenters, or promoting the dream of a 7 T-for-trillion dollar investment deal, etc. Alas, the market can remain irrational longer than I can remain solvent.

That $7 trillion dollar ask pushed me from skeptical to full-on eye-roll emoji land— the dude is clearly a narcissist with delusions of grandeur— but it’s getting worse. Considering the $200 pro subscription was significantly unprofitable before this model came out, imagine how astonishingly expensive this model must be to run at many times that price.

[deleted]

Re: GPT-4.5

#466

Post by sfink »

planetafro wrote: post #394
nyarlathotep_ wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> AI as it stands in 2025 is an amazing technology, but it is not a product at all. Here I'm assuming "AI" to mean what's broadly called Generative AI (LLMs, photo, video generation) I genuinely am struggling to see what the product is too. The code assistant use cases are really impressive across the board (and I'm someone who was vocally against them less than a year ago), and I pay for Github CoPilot (for now) but…

I think search and chat are decent products as well. I am a Google subscriber and I just use Gemini as a replacement for search without ads. To me, this movement accelerated paid search in an unexpected way. I know the detractors will cry "hallucinations" and the ilk. I would counter with an argument about the state of the current web besieged by ads and misinformation. If people carry a reasonable amount of skeptici…

> I do worry about model poisoning with fake truths but don't feel we are there yet.

In my use, hallucinations will need to be a lot lower before we get there, because I already can't trust anything an LLM says so I don't think I could even distinguish a poisoned fake truth from a "regular" hallucination.

I just asked ChatGPT 4o to explain irreducible control flow graphs to me, something I've known in the past but couldn't remember. It gave me a couple of great definitions, with illustrative examples and counterexamples. I puzzled through one of the irreducible examples, and eventually realized it wasn't irreducible. I pointed out the error, and it gave a more complex example, also incorrect. It finally got it on the 3rd try. If I had been trying to learn something for the first time rather than remind myself of what I had once known, I would have been hopelessly lost. Skepticism about any response is still crucial.

Re: GPT-4.5

#467

Post by kgwgk »

MyOutfitIsVague wrote: post #445
bigstrat2003 wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And LLM's already have tons of productive uses. I disagree strongly with that. Right now they are fun toys to play with, but not useful tools, because they are not reliable. If and when that gets fixed, maybe they will have productive uses. But for right now, not so much.

They are pretty useful tools. Do yourself a favor and get a $100 free trial for Claude, hook it up to Aider, and give it a shot. It makes mistakes, it gets things wrong, and it still saves a bunch of time. A 10 minute refactoring turns into 30 seconds of making a request, 15 seconds of waiting, and a minute of reviewing and fixing up the output. It can give you decent insights into potential problems and error messag…

> a $100 free trial

What?

Re: GPT-4.5

#468

Post by aprilthird2021 »

tkgally wrote: post #276
tmaly wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would like to see a humor test. So far, I have not seen any model response that has made me laugh.

How does the following stand-up routine by Claude 3.7 Sonnet work for you? https://gally.net/temp/20250225claudestandup2.html

Reading this felt like reading junk food

EDIT: Junk food tastes kinda good though. This felt like drinking straight cooking oil. Tastes bad and bad for you.

Re: GPT-4.5

#469

Post by wilg »

nomel wrote: post #146
wilg wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

99% chance that's confirmation bias

Sam tweeted that they're running out of computer. I think it's reasonable to think they may serve somewhat quantized models when out of capacity. It would be a rational business decision that would minimally disrupt lower tier ChatGPT users. Anecdotally, I've noticed what appears to be drops in quality, some days. When the quality drops, it responds in odd ways when asked what model it is.

I mean, GPT 4.5 says "I'm ChatGPT, based on OpenAI's GPT-4 Turbo model." and o1 Pro Mode can't answer, just says "I’m ChatGPT, a large language model trained by OpenAI."

Asking it what model it is shouldn't be considered a reliable indicator of anything.

Re: GPT-4.5

#470

Post by billywhizz »

eightysixfour wrote: post #141
sebastiennight wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> * OpenAI seems to be betting that you'll need an ensemble of models with different capabilities, working as a single system, to jump beyond what the reasoning models today can do. Seems inaccurate as their most recent claim I've seen is that they expect this to be their last non-reasoning model, and are aiming to provide all capacities together in the future model releases (unifying the GPT-x and o-x lines) See thi…

From Sam's twitter: > After that, a top goal for us is to unify o-series models and GPT-series models by creating systems that can use all our tools, know when to think for a long time or not, and generally be useful for a very wide range of tasks. > In both ChatGPT and our API, we will release GPT-5 as a system that integrates a lot of our technology, including o3. We will no longer ship o3 as a standalone model. Yo…

or you could read it as a way to create a moat where none currently exists...
Post reply on HN