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

651–660 of 1001 posts

Re: GPT-4.5

#651

Post by dtnewman »

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…

Really depends on your use case. For low value tasks this is way too expensive. But for context, let’s say a court opinion is an average of 6000 words. Let’s say i want to analyze 10 court opinions and pull some information out that’s relevant to my case. That will run about $1.80 per document or $18 total. I wouldn’t pay that just to edify myself, but i can think of many use cases where it’s still a negligible cost, even if it only does 5% better than the 30x cheaper model.

Re: GPT-4.5

#652

Post by anoncareer0212 »

jodrellblank wrote: post #196
swatcoder wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We look forward to learning more about its strengths, capabilities, and potential applications in real-world settings. If GPT‑4.5 delivers unique value for your use case, your feedback (opens in a new window) will play an important role in guiding our decision. "We don't really know what this is good for, but spent a lot of money and time making it and are under intense pressure to announce new things right now. If…

> "Early testing shows that interacting with GPT‑4.5 feels more natural. Its broader knowledge base, improved ability to follow user intent, and greater “EQ” make it useful for tasks like improving writing, programming, and solving practical problems. We also expect it to hallucinate less." "Early testing doesn't show that it hallucinates less, but we expect that putting that sentence nearby will lead you to draw a c…

The link has data.

The link shows a significant reduction.

grep hallucination, or, https://imgur.com/a/mkDxe78.

Re: GPT-4.5

#653

Post by j_bum »

yousif_123123 wrote: post #463

It's disappointing not to see comparisons to Sonnet 3.7. Also since o3-mini is ahead of o1, not sure why in the video they compared to o1. gpt4 was way ahead of 3.5 when it came out. It's unfortunate that the first major gpt release since that is so underwhelming..

Agreed, but I suppose this is a tell. I think they’re trying to place this into a separate class of models.

I.e., we know it might not be as good as 3.7, but it is very friendly and maybe acts like it knows more things.

Re: GPT-4.5

#655

Post by petesergeant »

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…

> but on another feels like OpenAI really struggles to stay ahead of their competitors

on one hand. On the other hand, you can have 4o-mini and o3-mini back when you can pry them out of my cold dead hands. They're _fast_, they're _cheap_, and in 90% of cases where you're automating anything, they're all you need. Also they can handle significant volume.

I'm not sure that's going to save OpenAI, but their -mini models really are something special for the price/performance/accuracy.

Re: GPT-4.5

#656

Post by j_bum »

IAmGraydon wrote: post #476

Between this and Claude 3.7, I'm really beginning to believe that LLM development has hit a wall, and it might actually be impossible to push much farther for reasonable amounts of money and resources. They're incredible tools indeed and I use them on a daily basis to multiply my productivity, but yeah - I think we've all overshot this in a big way.

Agreed at every level.

I absolutely love LLMs. I see them as insanely useful, interactive, quirky, yet lossy modern search engines. But they’re fundamentally flawed, and I don’t see how an “agent” in the traditional sense of the world can actually be produced from them.

The wall seems to be close. And the bubble is starting to leak air.

Re: GPT-4.5

#657

Post by rl3 »

rl3 wrote: post #335
turnsout wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you like absurdist humor, go into the OpenAI playground, select 3.5-Turbo, and dial up the temperature to the point where the output devolves into garbled text after 500 tokens or so. The first ~200 tokens are in the freaking sweet spot of humor.

Maybe it's rose-colored glasses, but 3.5 was really the golden era for LLM comedy. More modern LLMs can't touch it. Just ask it to write you a film screenplay involving some hard-ass 80s/90s action star and someone totally unrelated and opposite of that. The ensuring unhinged magic is unparalleled.

>The ensuring unhinged magic is unparalleled.

Oops: ensuing*

Re: GPT-4.5

#658

Post by rl3 »

jcims wrote: post #343
rl3 wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe it's rose-colored glasses, but 3.5 was really the golden era for LLM comedy. More modern LLMs can't touch it. Just ask it to write you a film screenplay involving some hard-ass 80s/90s action star and someone totally unrelated and opposite of that. The ensuring unhinged magic is unparalleled.

I built a little AI assistant to read my calendar and send me a summary of my day every morning. I told it to roast me and be funny with it. 3.5 was *way* better than anything else at that.

Yeah, I think the fact its "mind" so to speak was more fragmented and unpredictable was almost a boon for that purpose.

Re: GPT-4.5

#659

Post by anshumankmr »

If this cannot eliminate hallucinations or at least reduce them to be statistically unlikely to be happen, and I assume it has more params than GPT4's trillion parameters, that means the scaling law is dead isn't it?

Re: GPT-4.5

#660

Post by matwood »

HDThoreaun wrote: post #572
bigstrat2003 wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And LLM's already have tons of productive uses. I disagree strongly with that. Right now they are fun toys to play with, but not useful tools, because they are not reliable. If and when that gets fixed, maybe they will have productive uses. But for right now, not so much.

I use LLMs everyday to proofread and edit my emails. They’re incredible at it, as good as anyone I’ve ever met. Tasks that involve language and not facts tend to be done well by LLMs.

> I use LLMs everyday to proofread and edit my emails.

This right here. I used to spend tons of time making sure my emails were perfect. Is it professional enough, am I being too terse, etc…

Post reply on HN