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

471–480 of 1001 posts

Re: GPT-4.5

#471

Post by tonyhart7 »

nyc_data_geek1 wrote: post #374
crazygringo wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You go into this process with a perspective, you do not build a solution and then start looking for the problem. Otherwise, you cannot estimate your TAM with any reasonable degree of accuracy, and thus cannot know how much to reasonably expect as return to expect on your investment. In the case of AI, which has had the benefit of a lot of hype until now, these expectations have been very much overblown, and this is b…

wdym by this ?? "you do not build a solution and then start looking for the problem"

their endgame goal was to replace Human entirely, Robotic and AI is perfect match to replace all human together

They don't need to find problem because problem is full automatons from start to end

Re: GPT-4.5

#472

Post by fragmede »

wilg wrote: post #469
nomel wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Interviewing deepseek as to its identity should absolve anyone of that notion.

Re: GPT-4.5

#473

Post by mechagodzilla »

pinkmuffinere wrote: post #443
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…

This is a very harsh take. Another interpretation is “We know this is much more expensive, but it’s possible that some customers do value the improved performance enough to justify the additional cost. If we find that nobody wants that, we’ll shut it down, so please let us know if you value this option”.

I think that's the right interpretation, but that's pretty weak for a company that's nominally worth $150B but is currently bleeding money at a crazy clip. "We spent years and billions of dollars to come up with something that's 1) very expensive, and 2) possibly better under some circumstances than some of the alternatives." There are basically free, equally good competitors to all of their products, and pretty much any company that can scrape together enough dollars and GPUs to compete in this space manages to 'leapfrog' the other half dozen or so competitors for a few weeks until someone else does it again.

Re: GPT-4.5

#474

Post by emaciatedslug »

dgfitz wrote: post #434
svnt wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But there is no actual empathy, it isn’t possible.

But there is no actual death or love in a movie or book and yet we react as if there is. It's literally what qualifying a movie as a "tear-jerker” is. I wanted to see Saving Private Ryan in theaters to bond with my Grandpa who received a Purple Heart in the Korean War, I was shutdown almost instantly from my family. All special effects and no death but he had PTSD and one night thought his wife was the N.K. and nearly choked her to death because he had flashbacks and she came into the bedroom quietly so he wasn't disturbed. Extreme example yes, but having him loose his shit in public because of something analogous for some is near enough it makes no difference.

Re: GPT-4.5

#475

Post by 404mm »

adamtaylor_13 wrote: post #440

It’s crazy how quickly OpenAI releases went from, “Honey, check out the latest release!” to a total snooze fest. Coming in the heels of Sonnet 3.7 which is a marked improvement over 3.5 which is already the best in the industry for coding, this just feels like a sad whimper.

I’m just disappointed that while everyone else (DS, Claude) had something to introduce for the “Plus” grade users, gpt 4.5 is so resource demanding that it’s only available to quite expensive Pro sub. That just doesn’t feel much like progress.

Re: GPT-4.5

#476

Post by IAmGraydon »

Between this and Claude 3.7, I'm really beginning to believe that LLM development has hit a wall, and it might actually be impossible to push much farther for reasonable amounts of money and resources. They're incredible tools indeed and I use them on a daily basis to multiply my productivity, but yeah - I think we've all overshot this in a big way.

Re: GPT-4.5

#478

Post by BobbyJo »

georgemcbay wrote: post #359
jstummbillig wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What it confirms, I think, is, that we are going to need a lot more chips.

Further confirmation, IMO, that the idea that any of this leads to anything close to AGI is people getting high on their own supply (in some cases literally). LLMs are a great tool for what is effectively collected knowledge search and summary (so long as you are willing to accept that you have to verify all of the 'knowledge' they spit back because they always have the ability to go off the rails) but they have been…

I'd put myself on the pessimistic side of all the hype, but I still acknowledge that where we are now is a pretty staggering leap from two years ago. Coding in particular has gone from hints and fragments to full scripts that you can correct verbally and are very often accurate and reliable.

Re: GPT-4.5

#479

Post by dialup_sounds »

mandevil wrote: post #361
crazygringo wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

ChatGPT had its initial public release November 30th, 2022. That's 820 days to today. The Apple II was first sold June 10, 1977, and Visicalc was first sold October 17, 1979, which is 859 days. So we're right about the same distance in time- the exact equal duration will be April 7th of this year. Going back to the very first commercially available microcomputer, the Altair 8800 (which is not a great match, since tha…

For the sake of perspective: there are about ten times more paying OpenAI subscribers today than VisiCalc licenses ever sold.

Re: GPT-4.5

#480

Post by Workaccount2 »

j_maffe wrote: post #207
fpgaminer wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems on par with the existing scaling curve. If I had to speculate, this model would have been an internal-only model, but they're releasing it for PR. An optimized version with 99% of the performance for 1/10th the cost will come out later.

This is the shittiest PR move I've seen since the AI trend started.

At least so far it's coding performance is bad, but from what I have seen it's writing abilities are totally insane. It doesn't read like AI output anymore.
Post reply on HN