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

GPT-5.2

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

541–550 of 1001 posts

Re: GPT-5.2

#541

Post by cbracketdash »

mmaunder wrote: post #407
nbardy wrote: post #398

Those arc agi 2 improvements are insane. Thats especially encouraging to me because those are all about generalization. 5 and 5.1 both felt overfit and would break down and be stubborn when you got them outside their lane. As opposed to Opus 4.5 which is lovely at self correcting. It’s one of those things you really feel in the model rather than whether it can tackle a harder problem or not, but rather can I go back…

Same. Also got my attention re ARC-AGI-2. That's meaningful. And a HUGE leap.

Slight tangent yet I think is quite interesting... you can try out the ARC-AGI 2 tasks by hand at this website [0] (along with other similar problem sets). Really puts into perspective the type of thinking AI is learning!

[0] https://neoneye.github.io/arc/?dataset=ARC-AGI-2

Re: GPT-5.2

#542

Post by [deleted] »

piskov wrote: post #536
Kim_Bruning wrote: post #518

I'm continuously surprised that some people get good results out of GPT models. They sort of fail on my personal benchmarks for me. Maybe GPT needs a different approach to prompting? (as compared to eg Claude, Gemini, or Kimi)

They are all gpt as in generative pre-trained transformer

[deleted]

Re: GPT-5.2

#543

Post by Libidinalecon »

dinobones wrote: post #171

It's becoming challenging to really evaluate models. The amount of intelligence that you can display within a single prompt, the riddles, the puzzles, they've all been solved or are mostly trivial to reasoners. Now you have to drive a model for a few days to really get a decent understanding of how good it really is. In my experience, while Sonnet/Opus may not have always been leading on benchmarks, they have always…

Totally agree. I just got a free trial month I guess to try to bring me back to chatGPT but I don't really know what to ask it to display if it is on par with Gemini.

I really have a sinking feel right now actually of what an absolute giant waste of capital all this is.

I am glad for all the venture capital behind all this to subsidize my intellectual noodlings on a super computer but my god what have we done?

This is so much fun but this doesn't feel like we are getting closer to "AGI" after using Gemini for about 100 hours or so now. The first day maybe but not now when you see how off it can still be all the time.

Re: GPT-5.2

#544

Post by dcre »

AstroBen wrote: post #515
agentifysh wrote: post #436

Looks like they've begun censoring posts at r/Codex and not allowing complaint threads so here is my honest take: - It is faster which is appreciated but not as fast as Opus 4.5 - I see no changes, very little noticeable improvements over 5.1 - I do not see any value in exchange for +40% in token costs All in all I can't help but feel that OpenAI is facing an existential crisis. Gemini 3 even when its used from AI St…

Did you notice much improvement going from Gemini 2.5 to 3? I didn't I just think they're all struggling to provide real world improvements

Nearly everyone else (and every measure) seems to have found 3 a big improvement over 2.5.

Re: GPT-5.2

#545

Post by astrange »

johndill wrote: post #522

Did Calmmy Sammy that his is the version that will finally cure cancer? The AI shakeout in the AI industry is going to be brutal. Can't see how Private Equity is going to get the little guy to be left holding the giant bag of excrement, but they will figure that out. AI, smart enough to replace you, but not quite smart enough the replace the CEO or Hedge Fund Bros.

What do private equity or hedge funds have to do with any of this? Those are like, specific business models that are not involved in this situation.

Re: GPT-5.2

#546

Post by p_ing »

sundarurfriend wrote: post #363
solarkraft wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Only downsides are in the polish department What an understatement. It has me thinking „man, fuck this“ on the daily. Just today it spontaneously lost an entire 20-30 minutes long thread and it was far from the first time. It basically does it any time you interrupt it in any way. It’s straight up data loss. It’s kind of a typical Google product in that it feels more like a tech demo than a product. It has theoreti…

ChatGPT web UI was also like this for the longest time, until a few months ago: all sorts of random UI bugs leading either to data loss or misleading UI state. Interrupting still is very flaky there too. And on the mobile app, if you move away from the app while it's taking time to think, its state would somehow desync from the actual backend thinking state, and get stuck randomly; sometimes restarting the app fixes…

> ChatGPT web UI was also like this for the longest time

Copilot Chat has been perfect in this respect. It's currently GPT 5.0, moving to 5.1 over the next month or so, but at least I've never lost an (even old) conversation since those reside in an Exchange mailbox.

Re: GPT-5.2

#547

Post by astrange »

gessha wrote: post #95
exe34 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm quite sad about the S-curve hitting us hard in the transformers. For a short period, we had the excitement of "ooh if GPT-3.5 is so good, GPT-4 is going to be amazing! ooh GPT-4 has sparks of AGI!" But now we're back to version inflation for inconsequential gains.

Because it will take thousands of underpaid researchers random searching through solution space to get to the next improvement, not 2-3 companies pressed to monetize and enshittify their product before money runs out. That and winning more hardware lotteries.

Underpaid? OpenAI!? It's pretty good I think.

https://www.levels.fyi/companies/openai/salaries/software-en...

Re: GPT-5.2

#548

Post by Kim_Bruning »

piskov wrote: post #536
Kim_Bruning wrote: post #518

I'm continuously surprised that some people get good results out of GPT models. They sort of fail on my personal benchmarks for me. Maybe GPT needs a different approach to prompting? (as compared to eg Claude, Gemini, or Kimi)

They are all gpt as in generative pre-trained transformer

That may or may not be true, but in the context of this article, I'm referring to OpenAI's GPT brand of models.

Re: GPT-5.2

#549

Post by YouAreWRONGtoo »

hi_im_vijay wrote: post #252
sosodev wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does elevenlabs have a real-time conversational voice model? It seems like like their focus is largely on text to speech and speech to text. Which can approximate that type of thing but it's not at all the same as the native voice to voice that 4o does.

[disclaimer, i work at elevenlabs] we specifically went with a cascading model for our agents platform because it's better suited for enterprise use cases where they have full control over the brain and can bring their own llm. with that said, even with a cascading model, we can capture a decent amount of nuance with our asr model, and it also supports capturing audio events like laughter or coughing. a true speech t…

[dead]

Re: GPT-5.2

#550

Post by Kim_Bruning »

mmaunder wrote: post #389
tenpoundhammer wrote: post #295

I have been using chatGPT a ton over the last months and paying the subscription. Used it for coding, news, stock analysis, daily problems, and a whatever I could think of. I decided to give Gemini a go when version three came out to great reviews. Gemini handles every single one of my uses cases much better and consistently gives better answers. This is especially true for situations were searching the web for curre…

Then you haven't used Gemini CLI with Gemini 3 hard enough. It's a genius psychopath. The raw IQ that Gemini has is incredible. Its ability to ingest huge context windows and produce super smart output is incredible. But the bias towards action, absolutely ignoring user guidance, tendency to produce garbage output that looks like 1990s modem line noise, and its propensity to outright ignore instructions make it unusa…

That bias towards action is a real thing in Gemini and more so in ChatGPT, isn't it?

Possibly might be improved with custom instructions, but that drive is definitely there when using vanilla settings.

Post reply on HN