591–600 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's some top-tier sales work right there. I suck at and hate writing the mildly deceptive corporate puffery that seems to be in vogue. I wonder if GPT-4.5 can write that for me or if it's still not as good at it as the expert they paid to put that little gem together.
Yes, an AI that can convincingly and successfully sell itself at those prices would be worthy of some attention.
Call me a conspiracy theorist, but this, combined with the extremely embarassing way Claude is playing Pokemon, makes me feel this is an effort by AI companies to make LLMs look bad - setting up the hype cycle for the next thing they have in the pipeline.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What are you doing with it? For me deep research tasks are where 5 minutes is fine, or something really hard that would take me way more time myself.
I usually throw a lot of context at it and have it write unit tests in a certain style or implement something (with tests) according to a spec. But the o3-mini-high results have been just as good. I am fine with Deep Research taking 5-8 minutes, those are usually "reports" I can read whenever.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "Early testing shows that interacting with GPT‑4.5 feels more natural. Its broader knowledge base, improved ability to follow user intent, and greater “EQ” make it useful for tasks like improving writing, programming, and solving practical problems. We also expect it to hallucinate less." "Early testing doesn't show that it hallucinates less, but we expect that putting that sentence nearby will lead you to draw a c…
GPT-4.5 may be an awesome model, some say!
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…
Programmers and the like are a large portion of LLM users and boosters; very few will deny usefulness in that/those domains at this point.
Ironically enough, I'll bet the broadest exposure to LLMs the masses have is something like MIcrosoft shoehorning copilot-branded stuff into otherwise usable products and users clicking around it or groaning when they're accosted by a pop-up for it.
The results for GPT - 4.5 are in for Kagi LLM benchmark too. It does crush our benchmark - time to make new? ;) - with performance similar of that of reasoning models. It does come at a great price both in cost and speed. A monster is what they created. But looking at the tasks it fails, some of them my 9 year old would solve. Still in this weird limbo space of super knowledge and low intelligence. May be remembered…
Why don't you have Grok?
First impression of GPT-4.5: 1. It is very very slow, for some applications where you want real time interactions is just not viable, the text attached below took 7s to generate with 4o, but 46s with GPT4.5 2. The style it writes is way better: it keeps the tone you ask and makes better improvements on the flow. One of my biggest complaints with 4o is that you want for your content to be more casual and accessible bu…
I'm wondering if generative AI will ultimately result in a very dense / bullet form style of writing. What we are doing now is effectively this: bullet_points' = compress(expand(bullet_points)) We are impressed by lots of text so must expand via LLM in order to impress the reader. Since the reader doesn't have time or interest to read the content they must compress it back into bullet points / quick summary. Really,…
GPT 4.5 pricing is insane: Price Input: $75.00 / 1M tokens Cached input: $37.50 / 1M tokens Output: $150.00 / 1M tokens GPT 4o pricing for comparison: Price Input: $2.50 / 1M tokens Cached input: $1.25 / 1M tokens Output: $10.00 / 1M tokens It sounds like it's so expensive and the difference in usefulness is so lacking(?) they're not even gonna keep serving it in the API for long: > GPT‑4.5 is a very large and comput…
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…
> "Early testing shows that interacting with GPT‑4.5 feels more natural. Its broader knowledge base, improved ability to follow user intent, and greater “EQ” make it useful for tasks like improving writing, programming, and solving practical problems. We also expect it to hallucinate less." "Early testing doesn't show that it hallucinates less, but we expect that putting that sentence nearby will lead you to draw a c…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good call. Here's the same exact prompt run against: GPT-4o: https://gist.github.com/simonw/592d651ec61daec66435a6f718c06... GPT-4o Mini: https://gist.github.com/simonw/cc760217623769f0d7e4687332bce... Claude 3.7 Sonnet: https://gist.github.com/simonw/6f11e1974e4d613258b3237380e0e... Claude 3.5 Haiku: https://gist.github.com/simonw/c178f02c97961e225eb615d4b9a1d... Gemini 2.0 Flash: https://gist.github.com/simonw/0c6f…
At a glance, none of these appear to be meaningfully worse than GPT-4.5