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

GPT-5

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

611–620 of 1001 posts

Re: GPT-5

#611

Post by synapsomorphy »

peterdsharpe wrote: post #254
kybernetikos wrote: post #184

ChatGPT5 in this demo: > For an airplane wing (airfoil), the top surface is curved and the bottom is flatter. When the wing moves forward: > * Air over the top has to travel farther in the same amount of time -> it moves faster -> pressure on the top decreases. > * Air underneath moves slower -> pressure underneath is higher > * The presure difference creates an upward force - lift Isn't that explanation of why wings…

Yes, it is completely wrong. If this were a valid explanation, flat-plate airfoils could not generate lift. (They can.) Source: PhD on aircraft design

It appears to me like the linked explanation is also subtly wrong, in a different way:

“This is why a flat surface like a sail is able to cause lift – here the distance on each side is the same but it is slightly curved when it is rigged and so it acts as an aerofoil. In other words, it’s the curvature that creates lift, not the distance.”

But like you say flat plates can generate lift at positive AoA, no curvature (camber) required. Can you confirm this is correct? Kinda going crazy because I'd very much expect a Cambridge aerodynamicist to get this 100% right.

Re: GPT-5

#612

Post by rstuart4133 »

beeflet wrote: post #361
highfrequency wrote: post #331

It is frequently suggested that once one of the AI companies reaches an AGI threshold, they will take off ahead of the rest. It's interesting to note that at least so far, the trend has been the opposite: as time goes on and the models get better, the performance of the different company's gets clustered closer together. Right now GPT-5, Claude Opus, Grok 4, Gemini 2.5 Pro all seem quite good across the board (ie the…

Perhaps it is not possible to simulate higher-level intelligence using a stochastic model for predicting text. I am not an AI researcher, but I have friends who do work in the field, and they are not worried about LLM-based AGI because of the diminishing returns on results vs amount of training data required. Maybe this is the bottleneck. Human intelligence is markedly different from LLMs: it requires far fewer examp…

> That being said, AGI is not a necessary requirement for AI to be totally world-changing.

Depends on how you define "world changing" I guess, but this world already looks different to the pre-LLM world to me.

Me asking LLM's things instead of consulting the output from other humans now takes up a significant fraction of my day. I don't google near as often, I don't trust any image or video I see as swathes of the creative professions have been replaced by output from LLM's.

It's funny, that final thing is the last thing I would have predicted. I always believed the one thing a machine could not match was human creativity, because the output of machines was always precise, repetitive and reliable. Then LLM's come along, randomly generating every token. Their primary weakness is they neither precise or reliable, but they can turn out an unending stream of unique output.

Re: GPT-5

#614

Post by mafro »

One reason for this release is surely to respond to their mess of product line-up naming.

How many people are going to understand (or remember) the difference between:

GPT-4o GPT-4.1 o3 o4 ....

Anthropic and Google have a much better named product for the market

Re: GPT-5

#615

Post by eldenring »

highfrequency wrote: post #331

It is frequently suggested that once one of the AI companies reaches an AGI threshold, they will take off ahead of the rest. It's interesting to note that at least so far, the trend has been the opposite: as time goes on and the models get better, the performance of the different company's gets clustered closer together. Right now GPT-5, Claude Opus, Grok 4, Gemini 2.5 Pro all seem quite good across the board (ie the…

A more powerful ASI, the market, is keeping everything in check. Meta's 10 figure offers are an example of this.

Re: GPT-5

#616

Post by echelon »

AgentMatrixAI wrote: post #566

I'm not really convinced, the benchmark blunder was really strange but the demos were quite underwhelming, and it appears this was reflected by a huge market correction in the betting markets as to who will have the best AI by end of the year. What excites me now is that Gemini 3.0 or some answer from Google is coming soon and that will be the one I will actually end up using. It seems like the last mover in the LLM…

I really don't want the already trillion dollar mega monopoly to own the world.

Re: GPT-5

#617

Post by einarfd »

punee94 wrote: post #577

I ran the below prompt to both Kimi2 and GPT5. how many rs in cranberry? -- GPT5's response: The word cranberry has two “r”s. One in cran and one in berry. Kimi2's response: There are three letter rs in the word "cranberry".

I got the same when trying it with standard gpt5. But when I used the thinking mode I got:

3 — cranberry.

Tried with Claude sonnet 4 as well:

There are 3 r’s in the word “cranberry”:

c-*r*-a-n-b-e-*rr*-y

The r’s appear in positions 2, 7, and 8.

I would expect standard gpt5 to get it right tbh.

Re: GPT-5

#618

Post by gigatexal »

I for one am totally here for the autocomplete revolution. Hundreds of billions of dollars spent to make autocomplete better. Cool.

Re: GPT-5

#619

Post by WorldPeas »

hatthew wrote: post #503
fidotron wrote: post #277

Going by the system card at: https://openai.com/index/gpt-5-system-card/ > GPT‑5 is a unified system . . . OK > . . . with a smart and fast model that answers most questions, a deeper reasoning model for harder problems, and a real-time router that quickly decides which model to use based on conversation type, complexity, tool needs, and explicit intent (for example, if you say “think hard about this” in the prompt).…

I know this is just arguing semantics, but wouldn't you call it a unified system since it has a single interface that automatically interacts with different components? It's not a unified model , but it seems correct to call it a unified system .

so openai is in the business of GPT wrappers now? I'm guessing their open model is an escape for those who wanted to have a "plain" model, though from my systematic testing, it's not much better than Kimi K2
Post reply on HN