OpenAI needs to focus on how Claude is leaving them in the dust for LLM assisted coding.
OpenAI Has New Focus (on the IPO)
61–70 of 281 posts
Re: OpenAI Has New Focus (on the IPO)
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
> they just bruteforce the type checkers/compilers to find out if their slop was correct Have you used an AI coding model at all in the last year and a half? I think your knowledge is pretty outdated now.
Yes, gpt 5.4 always tries to compile/check my c++ code after every prompt. Despite it being in my AGENTS.md to never run builds. Then I have to explicitly mention it, but it will do it again randomly after. What this means is the training/RL was trained with this workflow ;) But as you can tell, this workflow has no uses outside programming. Its just a hack to make it seem like the model is smart, but in fact its jus…
All the models ignore specific instructions most of the time.
It requires follow-up instructions to get it to do what you want.
By the time its farted around and you have farted around reprompting it you could have done the change yourself.
Re: OpenAI Has New Focus (on the IPO)
#63From the article: "You can see that in the recent iterations of ChatGPT. It has become such a sycophant, and creates answers and options, that you end up engaging with it. That’s juicing growth. Facebook style." This is something I relalized lately. ChatGPT is juicing growth Facebook style. The last time, I asked it a medical question, it answered the question, but ended the answer with something like "Can I tell you…
Ironically, I found the recent models engage a lot less in sycophant behavior than in ChatGPT 4 days.
Maybe it's the way I prompt it or maybe something I set in the personalization settings? It questions some decisions I make, point out flaws in my rationale, and so on.
It still has AI quirks that annoy me, but it's mostly harmless - it repeats the same terms and puns often enough that it makes me super aware that it is a text generator trying to behave as a human.
But thankfully it stopped glazing over any brainfart I have as if it was a masterstroke of superior human intelligence. I haven't seen one of those in quite a while.
I don't find the suggestions at the end of messages bad. I often ignore those, but at some points I find them useful. And I noticed that when I start a chat session with a definite goal stated, it stops suggesting follow ups once the goal is reached.
Re: OpenAI Has New Focus (on the IPO)
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
So that’s why I am getting clickbaity last sentences in every response now at ChatGPT. Things like ”If you want, I can also show a very fast Photoshop-style trick in Krita that lets you drag-copy an area in one step (without copy/paste). It’s hidden but extremely useful.” Every single chat now has it. Not only the conversational prompt with “I can continue talking about this”, but very clickbaity terms like: almost n…
Same here. “Do you want the one useful tip related to this topic that most people miss? It’s quite surprising.” If it were so useful, just tell me in the first place! If you say “Yes” then it’s usually just a regurgitation of your prior conversation, not actually new information. This immediately smelled of engagement bait as soon as the pattern started recently. It’s omnipresent and annoying.
You can tell it not to do this in your personalized context.
The model doesn’t always obey it, but 80% of the time it’s worked for me.
Re: OpenAI Has New Focus (on the IPO)
#65The quoted revenue numbers seem insane, but I guess it's the result of corporate deals where every developer seat is hundreds of dollars a month? My job has been publicly promoting who's on top of the "AI use dashboard" while our whole product falls apart. Surely this house of cards has to collapse at some point, better get public money before it does.
At least I’m not alone.
My company has a vibe coded leaderboard tracking AI usage.
Our token usage and number of lines changed will affect our performance review this year.
Re: OpenAI Has New Focus (on the IPO)
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't have a problem with the suggestions. Google search does the same at the end of searches. It does very often suggest things I want to know more about.
Then just write the extra paragraph rather than bait?
Bait what exactly ? Getting the user to type "yes" ? Great accomplishment.
Sometimes I want the extra paragraph, sometimes I don't. Sometimes I like the suggested follow up, sometimes I don't. Sometimes I have half an hour in front of me to keep digging into a subject, sometimes I don't.
Why should the LLM "just write the extra paragraph" (consuming electricity in the process) to a potential follow up question a user might, or might not, have ? If I write a simple question I hope to get a simple answer, not a whole essay answering stuff I did not explicitly ask for. And If I want to go deeper, typing 3 letters is not exactly a huge cost.
Re: OpenAI Has New Focus (on the IPO)
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
Suggestions are absolutely fine. But this is baiting. Chatgpt could have easily given me that information without the bait. And I would have happily consumed it. And maybe if it did it once, it was fine - but it kept on doing it - bait after bait after bait. The objective was to increase the engagement "metrics" clearly. The seems to me as if the leadership will take all 'shortcuts' required for growth.
This seems overly cynical. Firstly, tl;dr; is a very real thing. If the user asks a question and the LLM both answers the question but then writes an essay about every probable subsequent question, that would be negatively overwhelming to most people, and few would think that's a good idea. That isn't how a conversation works, either. Worse still if you're on a usage quota or are paying by token and you ask a simple…
Have you used ChatGPT lately?
What you describe is not quite what they are doing, they are adding nudges at the end of the follow-up question suggestions. For instance I was researching some IKEA furniture and it gives suggestions for followup, with nudges in parenthesis "IKEA-furniture many people use for this (very cool solution)" and at the end of another question suggestion: "(very simple, but surprisingly effective)". They are subtle cliffhangers trying to influence you to go on, not pure suggestions. I'm just waiting for the "(You wouldn't believe that this did!)". It has soured me on the service, Claude has a much better personality imo.
Re: OpenAI Has New Focus (on the IPO)
#68One thing odd, maybe just to me, is why OpenAI has been stuffing its ranks with former Facebookers who are known to juice growth, find edges, and keep people addicted. They have little background in getting enterprises to buy into a product. Simo herself ran the Facebook app. That organization’s genius is consumer engagement: behavioral hooks, dopamine loops, the relentless optimization of the feed. You can see that…
The worst are the ones who say things like “OpenAI only has 5% paying users!” As if that’s a really bad number. That is the same ratio YouTube, the world’s largest media company, has. And ChatGPT has like 800m users after only a few years of existence.
And “once they sell ads, they’ll lose all their users!” As if that happened to FB, Google, YouTube, or Instagram…
Some people are really rooting for the downfall of OpenAI that will simply not happen, and their rage makes them utterly unreasonable.
Re: OpenAI Has New Focus (on the IPO)
#69There’s a strong chance the IPO window has passed. I just don’t see investors willing to jump in here given all the questions about the financial viability of AI. The bulk of those investing now are broadly just pumping cash into the fire to keep their prior investments from going to zero. We have hit a mass deceleration of what the current tech can do with transformers. The tech is also on a path to hyper-commoditiz…
[flagged]
Re: OpenAI Has New Focus (on the IPO)
#70From the article: "You can see that in the recent iterations of ChatGPT. It has become such a sycophant, and creates answers and options, that you end up engaging with it. That’s juicing growth. Facebook style." This is something I relalized lately. ChatGPT is juicing growth Facebook style. The last time, I asked it a medical question, it answered the question, but ended the answer with something like "Can I tell you…
My problem with this is less that it's perpetual engagement, but that I use ChatGPT for direct programming outputs, like "go through a geojson file and if the feature is within 150 miles of X, keep and record the distance in miles". Whether it gives a good answer or not, the suggestion at the end is a synthesis of my ChatGPT history, so it could be offering to rewrite a whole script, draw diagrams, or bring in past questions for one franken-suggestion. This is either the wrong kind of engagement for me, or maybe "teaching" me to move my full work process into the chat. I've asked it many times to give concise answers and to not offer suggestions like this, but the suggestions are really baked in.