Given the difference between GPT-3 and GPT-4, a fair numbering for "GPT-5" is probably "GPT-4.2".
The GPT-5 Launch Was Concerning
61–70 of 97 posts
Re: The GPT-5 Launch Was Concerning
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
"AGI achieved internally" -- Sam Altman
Yes a quote from a meme post on Reddit. No doubt he has been overselling the future for a while but why use a quote with the wrong context?
See the sibling comment from AlexandrB. Altman and tons of other hype men in tech do this thing where they make outrageous promises, then retcon as “just jokes” whichever ones don’t come true, so that they can never be disproven. It’s a swindle made all the more irritating by the enablers like you who go “why did you take the joke seriously?” to get cred on the internet while helping the scam continue.
Or to put it another way, do you think Altman denounced all the hype (and subsequent investment dollars) he got because of the “AGI achieved internally” post? Did he say to anyone “hey, that was a meme post, don’t take it seriously”? Or did he milk it for all it was worth before only later quietly climbing down from that when it was no longer paying dividends. Again, duplicitous and disingenuous behavior.
Re: The GPT-5 Launch Was Concerning
#63I asked it to make a drawing of the US with every state numbered from biggest to smallest with 1 being the largest. Maine was #89 (That is not a typo.) and Oregon was #1. OpenAI as a company simply cannot exist without a constant influx of investor money. Burning money on every request is not a viable business model. Companies built on OpenAI/Anthropic are similarly deeply unprofitable businesses. OpenAI needs to con…
Isn’t it old news that the full for-profit is not happening and they renegotiated the terms that would make the current proposed PBC a solution as it meets the economic terms? I have no idea if OpenAI succeeds or not but I find arguments like yours difficult to understand. Most businesses are not using these systems to draw a map. Maybe the release of 5 is lackluster but it does not change that there is some value in…
> ignoring R&D (which is definitely a huge cost) they run at a profit.
how can you say such a hand wavy comment with a straight face? you can't just ignore a huge cost for a company and suddenly they are profitable. that's Enron level moronic. without constant R&D, the company gets beat by competitors that continue R&D. the product is not "good enough" to not continue improving.
if i ignored my major costs in my finances, i could retire, but i can't go to the grocery store and walk out with a basket of food while telling them that i'm ignoring this major cost in my life.
get real
Re: The GPT-5 Launch Was Concerning
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
Only if you consider Sam Altman not serious: https://www.tomsguide.com/ai/chatgpt/sam-altman-claims-agi-i... I find this pattern in tech hype really frustrating. Someone in a leadership role in a major tech company/VC promises something outrageous. Time passes and the promise never materializes. People then retcon the idea that "everybody knew that wasn't going to happen". Well either "everybody" doesn't include Elon…
> Only if you consider Sam Altman not serious > Elon Musk[1], Sam Altman, or Marc Andreessen[2] ... these people are liars. Bingo. These people are salesmen & marketers. Lying to sell a product (including gathering funding & pumping company stock) is literally the job description. If they weren't good at it, they wouldn't hold the positions they do.
Being a good salesperson does not require lying. It's not the job that's doing the lying, but the person lying to you.
Re: The GPT-5 Launch Was Concerning
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
FTFY? Cute, but you’re arguing against a strawman. My point wasn’t that companies are using GPT to draw maps, it’s that dismissing the tech based on one goofy output ignores the far more common, revenue-generating use cases already in production. As for “single-digit billions in revenue vs. hundreds of billions in expenses,” that’s just bad math. You’re conflating the total AI capex from hyperscalers with OpenAI’s ow…
Microsoft AI Revenue In 2025: $13 billion, with $10 billion from OpenAI, sold "at a heavily discounted rate that essentially only covers costs for operating the servers." Capital Expenditures in 2025: $80 billion --- Amazon AI Revenue In 2025: $5 billion Capital Expenditures in 2025: $105 billion --- Google AI Revenue: $7.7 Billion (at most) Capital Expenditures in 2025: $75 Billion --- Meta AI Revenue: $2bn to $3bn…
Take the emotional level down a notch. You seemed to miss the point. Hyperscaler spend does not equate to OpenAI P&L.
Re: The GPT-5 Launch Was Concerning
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn’t it old news that the full for-profit is not happening and they renegotiated the terms that would make the current proposed PBC a solution as it meets the economic terms? I have no idea if OpenAI succeeds or not but I find arguments like yours difficult to understand. Most businesses are not using these systems to draw a map. Maybe the release of 5 is lackluster but it does not change that there is some value in…
> ignoring R&D (which is definitely a huge cost) they run at a profit. how can you say such a hand wavy comment with a straight face? you can't just ignore a huge cost for a company and suddenly they are profitable. that's Enron level moronic. without constant R&D, the company gets beat by competitors that continue R&D. the product is not "good enough" to not continue improving. if i ignored my major costs in my fina…
I don’t know why so many take these discussion with such a high emotional level. Has the ability to constructively discuss a topic been lost? I know you usually respond with high emotion and brash but at least try to be constructive.
It’s a valid point and that’s the biggest question when it comes to the medium to long term business plan. Those R&D costs are an important part of it. My point is that since runtime is profitable there is a lot more runway to figure out how to tweak R&D spend in such a way that it becomes a viable business for the long term.
There are a lot of questions that they need to answer to get to pure profitability but they are also the fastest growing company on a MAU number in history with a product that you can see has a chance at become profitable from all sides. They may fail or become sidelined but the hyperbole and lack of critical discussion here is disappointing.
Re: The GPT-5 Launch Was Concerning
#67Yes, GPT-5 is more of an iteration than anything else, and to me this says more about OpenAI than the rest of the industry. However, I think the majority of the improvements over the past year have been difficult to quantify using benchmarks. Users often talk about how certain models "feel" smarter on their particular tasks, and we won't know if the same is true for GPT-5 until people use it for a while. The "GPT-5 w…
> Do we really want to replace humans? AGI doesn't really replace humans, it merely provides a unified model that can be hooked up to carry out any number of tasks. Fundamentally no different than how we already write bespoke firmware for every appliance, except instead of needing specialized code for each case, you can simply use the same program for everything. To that extent, software developers have always been t…
> Which is what AGI enables.
I appreciate the well-crafted response, but respectfully disagree with this sentiment, and I think it's a subtle point. Remember the no free lunch theorems: no general program will be the best at all tasks. Competent LLMs provide an excellent prior from which a compelling program for a particular task can be obtained by finetuning. But this is not what OpenAI, Google, and Anthropic (to a lesser extent) are interested in, as they don't really facilitate it. It's never been a priority.
They want to create a digital entity for the purpose of supremacy. Aside from DeepMind, these groups really don't care about how this tech can assist in problems that need solving, like drug discovery or climate prediction or discovery of new materials (e.g. batteries) or automation of hell jobs. They only care about code assistance to accelerate their own progress. I talk to their researchers at conferences and it frustrates me to no end. They want to show off how "human-like" their model is, how it resembles humans in creative writing and painting, how it beats humans on fun math and coding competitions that were designed for humans with a limited capacity to memorize, how it provides "better" medical opinions than a trained physician. That last use case is pushing governments to outlaw LLMs for medicine entirely.
A lab that claims to push toward AGI is not interested in assisting mankind toward a brighter future. They want to be the first for bragging rights, hype, VC funding, and control.
Re: The GPT-5 Launch Was Concerning
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
Now why would the CEO of an AI company say something like that!?
Is it a given that they need to unrealistically hype everything? To me it just seems like he's killing any and all credibility he had Probably a bad long term strategy? I mean other non-AI companies use hype too sure.. but it's maybe a little sprinkle of 1.1x on top aimed to highlight their best features. Here we're going full on 100x of reality
It's not a given but Altman is a public figure for a reason while I don't know the names of any of the other CEOs off the top of my head. He talks a lot and when he talks, it's about AI. Even talking about the dangers of AI is hype because it implies it's an important topic to discuss now because it's imminent.
Re: The GPT-5 Launch Was Concerning
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes a quote from a meme post on Reddit. No doubt he has been overselling the future for a while but why use a quote with the wrong context?
See the sibling comment from AlexandrB. Altman and tons of other hype men in tech do this thing where they make outrageous promises, then retcon as “just jokes” whichever ones don’t come true, so that they can never be disproven. It’s a swindle made all the more irritating by the enablers like you who go “why did you take the joke seriously?” to get cred on the internet while helping the scam continue. Or to put it a…
Again, out of all the quotes to call out the weakest one was picked.
Re: The GPT-5 Launch Was Concerning
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
Now why would the CEO of an AI company say something like that!?
Is it a given that they need to unrealistically hype everything? To me it just seems like he's killing any and all credibility he had Probably a bad long term strategy? I mean other non-AI companies use hype too sure.. but it's maybe a little sprinkle of 1.1x on top aimed to highlight their best features. Here we're going full on 100x of reality
> To me it just seems like he's killing any and all credibility he had. Probably a bad long term strategy?
He's already got more money than God and there's an infinite supply of suckers who think wealth and skill/intelligence are correlated for him to keep feeding off of (see also Goop and Tesla, incredibly successful companies also run by wealthy hucksters). Sam Altman will be just fine.