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

611–620 of 1001 posts

Re: GPT-5.2

#611

Post by eru »

bluefirebrand wrote: post #582
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…

[flagged]

Maybe you are holding it wrong?

Contemporary LLMs still have huge limitations and downsides. Just like hammer or a saw has limitations. But millions of people are getting good value out of them already (both LLMs and hammers and saws). I find it hard to believe that they are all deluded.

Re: GPT-5.2

#612

Post by xmcqdpt2 »

I don’t know if they used the new ChatGPT to translate this page but I was served the French version and it is NOT good. There are placeholders for quotes like and the prose is incredibly repetitive. You’d figure that OpenAI of all people would be able to translate something to one of the worlds most spoken language.

Re: GPT-5.2

#613

Post by redox99 »

jumploops wrote: post #117

> “a new knowledge cutoff of August 2025” This (and the price increase) points to a new pretrained model under-the-hood. GPT-5.1, in contrast, was allegedly using the same pretraining as GPT-4o.

I think it's more likely to be the old base model checkpoint further trained on additional data.

Re: GPT-5.2

#614

Post by rapind »

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…

I found the gemini cli extremely lacking and even frustrating. Why google would choose node…

Codex is decent and seemed to be improving (being written in rust helps). Claude code is still the king, but my god they have server and throttling issues.

Mixed bag wherever you go. As model progress slows / flatlines (already has?) I’m sure we’ll see a lot more focus and polish on the interfaces.

Re: GPT-5.2

#615

Post by eru »

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 realise this sounds obvious to many people but it clearly wasn't to those guys so maybe it's not!

It's worse: Gemini (and ChatGPT, but to a lesser extent) have started suggesting random follow-up topics when they conclude that a chat in a session has exhausted a topic. Well, when I say random, I mean that they seem to be pulling it from the 'memory' of our other chats.

For a naive user without preconceived notions of how to use these tools, this guidance from the tools themselves would serve as a pretty big hint that they should intermingle their sessions.

Re: GPT-5.2

#616

Post by eru »

onraglanroad wrote: post #430
noname120 wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Problem is that by default ChatGPT has the “Reference chat history” option enabled in the Memory options. This causes any previous conversation to leak into the current one. Just creating a new conversation is not enough, you also need to disable that option.

That seems like a terrible default. Unless they have a weighting system for different parts of context?

They do (or at least they have something that behaves like weighting).

Re: GPT-5.2

#617

Post by eru »

vintermann wrote: post #353
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.…

It's not at all obvious where to drop the context, though. Maybe it helps to have similar tasks in the context, maybe not. It did really, shockingly well on a historical HTR task I gave it, so I gave it another one, in some ways an easier one... Thought it wouldn't hurt to have text in a similar style in the context. But then it suddenly did very poorly. Incidentally, one of the reasons I haven't gotten much into sub…

> Incidentally, one of the reasons I haven't gotten much into subscribing to these services, is that I always feel like they're triaging how many reasoning tokens to give me, or AB testing a different model... I never feel I can trust that I interact with the same model.

That's what websites have been doing for ages. Just like you can't step twice in the same river, you can't use the same version of Google Search twice, and never could.

Re: GPT-5.2

#619

Post by eru »

mmaunder wrote: post #414
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.…

Yeah I think a lot of us are taking knowing how LLMs work for granted. I did the fast.ai course a while back and then went off and played with VLLM and various LLMs optimizing execution, tweaking params etc. Then moved on and started being a user. But knowing how they work has been a game changer for my team and I. And context window is so obvious, but if you don't know what it is you're going to think AI sucks. Whic…

> Is this why everyone thinks AI sucks?

Who's everyone? There are many, many people who think AI is great.

In reality, our contemporary AIs are (still) tools with glaring limitations. Some people overlook the limitations, or don't see them, and really hype them up. I guess the people who then take the hype at face value are those that think that AI sucks? I mean, they really do honestly suck in comparison to the hypest of hypes.

Re: GPT-5.2

#620

Post by cmrdporcupine »

AstroBen wrote: post #515
agentifysh wrote: post #436

Looks like they've begun censoring posts at r/Codex and not allowing complaint threads so here is my honest take: - It is faster which is appreciated but not as fast as Opus 4.5 - I see no changes, very little noticeable improvements over 5.1 - I do not see any value in exchange for +40% in token costs All in all I can't help but feel that OpenAI is facing an existential crisis. Gemini 3 even when its used from AI St…

Did you notice much improvement going from Gemini 2.5 to 3? I didn't I just think they're all struggling to provide real world improvements

I think what they're actually struggling with is costs. And I think they're all behind the scenes quantizing models to manage load here and there, and they're all giving inconsistent results.

I noticed huge improvement from Sonnet 4.5 to Opus 4.5 when it became unthrottled a couple weeks ago. I wasn't going to sign back up with Anthropic but I did. But two weeks in it's already starting to seem to be inconsistent. And when I go back to Sonnet it feels like they did something to lobotomize it.

Meanwhile I can fire up DeepSeek 3.2 or GLM 4.6 for a fraction of the cost and get almost as good as results.

Post reply on HN