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

581–590 of 1001 posts

Re: GPT-5.2

#581

Post by jfreds »

bgwalter wrote: post #557
mmaunder wrote: post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My name is Mark Maunder. Not the fisheries expert. The other one when you google me. I’m 51 and as skeptical as you when it comes to tech. I’m the CTO of a well known cybersecurity company and merely a user of AI. Since you critiqued my post, allow me to reciprocate: I sense the same deflector shields in you as many others here. I’d suggest embracing these products with a sense of optimism until proven otherwise and…

I have tried the models and in domains I know well they are pathetic. They remove all nuance, make errors that non-experts do not notice and generally produce horrible code. It is even worse in non-programming domains, where they chop up 100 websites and serve you incorrect bland slop. If you are using them as a search helper, that sometimes works, though 2010 Google produced better results. Oracle dropped 11% today…

> they remove all nuance

Said in a sweeping generalization with zero sense of irony :D

Re: GPT-5.2

#582

Post by bluefirebrand »

mmaunder wrote: post #501
twisterius wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

My name is Mark Maunder. Not the fisheries expert. The other one when you google me. I’m 51 and as skeptical as you when it comes to tech. I’m the CTO of a well known cybersecurity company and merely a user of AI. Since you critiqued my post, allow me to reciprocate: I sense the same deflector shields in you as many others here. I’d suggest embracing these products with a sense of optimism until proven otherwise and…

[flagged]

Re: GPT-5.2

#583

Post by blindhippo »

onraglanroad wrote: post #333

I suppose this is as good a place as any to mention this. I've now met two different devs who complained about the weird responses from their LLM of choice, and it turned out they were using a single session for everything. From recipes for the night, presents for the wife and then into programming issues the next day. Don't do that. The whole context is sent on queries to the LLM, so start a new chat for each topic.…

Thing is, context management is NOT obvious to most users of these tools. I use agentic coding tools on a daily basis now and still struggle with keeping context focused and useful, usually relying on patterns such as memory banks and task tracking documents to try to keep a log of things as I pop in and out of different agent contexts. Yet still, one false move and I've blown the window leading to a "compression" which is utterly useless.

The tools need to figure out how to manage context for us. This isn't something we have to deal with when working with other humans - we reliably trust that other humans (for the most part) retain what they are told. Agentic use now is like training a team mate to do one thing, then taking it out back to shoot it in the head before starting to train another one. It's inefficient and taxing on the user.

Re: GPT-5.2

#584

Post by Bombthecat »

nullbound wrote: post #360
dmd wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I consistently have exactly the opposite experience. ChatGPT seems extremely willing to do a huge number of searches, think about them, and then kick off more searches after that thinking, think about it, etc., etc. whereas it seems like Gemini is extremely reluctant to do more than a couple of searches. ChatGPT also is willing to open up PDFs, screenshot them, OCR them and use that as input, whereas Gemini just igno…

I will say that it is wild, if not somewhat problematic that two users have such disparate views of seemingly the same product. I say that, but then I remember my own experience just from few days ago. I don't pay for gemini, but I have paid chatgpt sub. I tested both for the same product with seemingly same prompt and subbed chatgpt subjectively beat gemini in terms of scope, options and links with current decent de…

Could also be a language thing ...

Re: GPT-5.2

#585

Post by qeternity »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #300
emp17344 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m extremely skeptical because of all those articles claiming OpenAI was freaking out about Gemini - now it turns out they just casually had a better model ready to go? I don’t buy it.

I (and others) have a strong suspicion that they can modulate models intelligence in almost real time by adjusting quantization and thinking time. It seems if anyone wants, they can really gas a model up in the moment and back it off after the hype wave.

Quantization is not some magical dial you can just turn. In practice you basically have 3 choices: fp16, fp8 and fp4.

Also thinking time means more tokens which costs more especially at the API level where you are paying per token and would be trivially observable.

There is basically no evidence that either of these are occurring in the way you suggest (boosting up and down).

Re: GPT-5.2

#586

Post by SubiculumCode »

onraglanroad wrote: post #333

I suppose this is as good a place as any to mention this. I've now met two different devs who complained about the weird responses from their LLM of choice, and it turned out they were using a single session for everything. From recipes for the night, presents for the wife and then into programming issues the next day. Don't do that. The whole context is sent on queries to the LLM, so start a new chat for each topic.…

I constantly switch out, even when it's on the same topic. It starts forming its own 'beliefs and assumptions', gets myopic. I also make use of the big three services in turn to attack ideas from multiple directions

Re: GPT-5.2

#587

Post by delifue »

goobatrooba wrote: post #359

I feel there is a point when all these benchmarks are meaningless. What I care about beyond decent performance is the user experience. There I have grudges with every single platform and the one thing keeping me as a paid ChatGPT subscriber is the ability to sort chats in "projects" with associated files (hello Google, please wake up to basic user-friendly organisation!) But all of them * Lie far too often with confi…

Once a metric becomes optimization target, it ceases to become good metric.

Re: GPT-5.2

#588

Post by delifue »

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…

It's also possible that OpenAI use many human-generated similar-to-ARC data to train (semi-cheating). OpenAI has enough incentive to fake high score.

Without fully disclosing training data you will never be sure whether good performance comes from memorization or "semi-memorization".

Re: GPT-5.2

#589

Post by esyir »

deepGem wrote: post #568
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…

There is no competing product for GPT Voice. Hands down. I have tried Claude, Gemini - they don't even comes close. But voice is not a huge traffic funnel. Text is. And the verdict is more or less unanimous at this time. Gemini 3.0 has outdone ChatGPT. I unsubscribed from GPT plus today. I was a happy camper until the last month when I started noticing deplorable bugs. 1. The conversation contexts are getting intertw…

Just a note, chatGPT does retain a persistent memory of conversations. In the settings menu, there's a section that allows you to tweak/clear this persistent memory

Re: GPT-5.2

#590

Post by GolfPopper »

mmaunder wrote: post #501
twisterius wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

My name is Mark Maunder. Not the fisheries expert. The other one when you google me. I’m 51 and as skeptical as you when it comes to tech. I’m the CTO of a well known cybersecurity company and merely a user of AI. Since you critiqued my post, allow me to reciprocate: I sense the same deflector shields in you as many others here. I’d suggest embracing these products with a sense of optimism until proven otherwise and…

Replace 'products' with 'message', 'tech' with 'religion' and 'CEO' with 'prophet' and you have a bog-standard cult recruitment pitch.
Post reply on HN