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

GPT-4.5

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

641–650 of 1001 posts

Re: GPT-4.5

#641

Post by dyauspitr »

jampa wrote: post #167

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…

Imgur might be the worst image hosting site I’ve ever experienced. Any interaction with that page results in switching images and big ads and they hijack the back button. Absolutely terrible. How far they’ve fallen from when it first began.

Re: GPT-4.5

#642

Post by jes5199 »

daemonologist wrote: post #131
ekojs wrote: post #12

> Because of this, we’re evaluating whether to continue serving it in the API long-term as we balance supporting current capabilities with building future models. Seems like it's not going to be deployed for long. $75.00 / 1M tokens for input $150.00 / 1M tokens for output That's crazy prices.

Imagine if they built a reasoning model with costs like these. Sometimes it seems like they're on a trajectory to create a model which is strictly more capable than I am but which costs 100x my salary to run.

if you still get a moore’s law halving every couple years, it becomes competitive in, uh, about thirteen years?

Re: GPT-4.5

#643

Post by Perenti »

What I find hilarious is that a 20-50% hallucination rate suggests this is still a program that tells lies and potentially causes people to die.

Re: GPT-4.5

#644

Post by nycdatasci »

nycdatasci wrote: post #453
Topfi wrote: post #24

Considering both this blog post and the livestream demos, I am underwhelmed. Having just finished the stream, I had a real "was that all" moment, which on one hand shows how spoiled I've gotten by new models impressing me, but on another feels like OpenAI really struggles to stay ahead of their competitors. What has been shown feels like it could be achieved using a custom system prompt on older versions of OpenAIs m…

Funny you should suggest that it seems like a revised system prompt: https://chatgpt.com/share/67c0fda8-a940-800f-bbdc-6674a8375f...

In case there was any confusion, the referenced link shows 4.5 claiming to be “ChatGPT 4.0 Turbo”. I have tried multiple times and various approaches. This model is aware of 4.5 via search, but insists that it is 4 or 4 turbo. Something doesn’t add up. This cannot be part of the response to R1, Grok 3, and Claude 3.7. Satya’s decision to limit capex seems prescient.

Re: GPT-4.5

#645

Post by bradley13 »

jampa wrote: post #167

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 use 4o mostly in German, so YMMV. However, I find a simple prompt controls the tone very well. "This should be informal and friendly", or "this should be formal and business-like".

Re: GPT-4.5

#646

Post by anoncareer0212 »

patates wrote: post #638
refulgentis wrote: post #617

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's directly from the post! I can't provide images here. I provided the numbers. What more can I do to show them? :)

People being wrong (especially on the internet) doesn't mean they are lying. Lying is being wrong intentionally. Also, the person you replied to comments on the wording tricks they use. After suddenly bringing new data and direction in the discussion, even calling them "wrong" would have been a stretch. I kindly suggest that you (and we all!) to keep discussing with an assumption of good faith.

"Early testing doesn't show that it hallucinates less, but we expect that putting ["we expect it will hallucinate less"] nearby will lead you to draw a connection there yourself"."

The link, the link we are discussing shows testing, with numbers.

They say "early testing doesn't show that it hallucinates less", to provide a basis for a claim of bad faith.

You are claiming that mentioning this is out of bounds if it contains the word lying. I looked up the definition. It says "used with reference to a situation involving deception or founded on a mistaken impression."

What am I missing here?

Let's pretend lying means You Are An Evil Person And This Is Personal!!!

How do I describe the fact what they claim is false?

Am I supposed to be sarcastic and pretend They are in on it and edited their post to discredit him after the fact?

Re: GPT-4.5

#647

Post by nwienert »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #427
doctoboggan wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was waiting for your comment and wow... that's bad. I guess they are ceding the LLMs for coding market to Anthropic? I remember seeing an industry report somewhere and it claimed software development is the largest user of LLMs, so it seems weird to give up in this area.

4.5 lies on a different path than their STEM models. o3-mini is an extremely powerful coding model and unquestionably is in the same league as 3.7. o3 is still the top stem overall model.

No way, I've found o3 mini to be terrible. It' not as good as R1/Sonnet 3.5.

Re: GPT-4.5

#648

Post by kla-s »

zaptrem wrote: post #26

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…

Well to play the devils advocat, i think this is useful to have, at least for ‘Open’Ai to start off from to apply QLora or similar approximations.

Bonus they could even do some self learning afterwards with the performance improvements DeepSeek just published and it might have more EQ and less hallucinations than starting from scratch…

ie the price might go down big time but there might be significant improvements down the line when starting from such a broad base

Re: GPT-4.5

#649

Post by gniv »

DannyBee wrote: post #376
jstummbillig wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What it confirms, I think, is, that we are going to need a lot more chips.

Eh, no. More chips won't save this right now, or probably in the near future (IE barring someone sitting on a breakthrough right now). It just means either A. Lots and lots of hard work that get you a few percent at a time, but add up to a lot over time. or B. Completely different approaches that people actually think about for a while rather than trying to incrementally get something done in the next 1-2 months. Mos…

> Completely different approaches that people actually think about for a while

I think this is very likely simply because there are so many smart people looking at it right now. I hope the bubble doesn't burst before it happens.

Re: GPT-4.5

#650

Post by anoncareer0212 »

AdieuToLogic wrote: post #640
refulgentis wrote: post #622

Earlier quoted context omitted.

- Parent is still the top comment. - 2 hours in, -3. 2 replies: - [It's because] you're hysterical - [It's because you sound] like a crypto bro - [It's because] you make an equally unfounded claim - [It's because] you didn't provide any proof (Ed.: It is right in the link ! I gave the #s! I can't ctrl-F...What else can I do here...AFAIK can't link images...whatever, here's imgur. https://imgur.com/a/mkDxe78 ) - [It's…

Your original comment opened with: You are lying. This is an ad hominem which assumes intent unknown to anyone other than the person to whom you replied. Subsequently railing against comment rankings and enumerating curt summaries of other comments does not help either.

Lying is defined as "used with reference to a situation involving deception or founded on a mistaken impression."

What am I missing here?

Those weren't curt summaries, they were quotes! And not pull quotes, they were the unedited beginning of each claim!

Post reply on HN