691–700 of 1001 posts
Why so much hate? They're doing their best. This is the state of progress in the field so far. The best minds are racing to innovate. The benchmarks are impressive nonetheless. Give them a break. At the end of the day, they built the chatbot who's saving your ass each day ever since.
Won't be surprised to see all these hand-picked results and extreme expectations to collapse under scenarios involving highly safety critical and complex demanding tasks requiring a definite focus on detail with lots of awareness, which what they haven't shown yet. So let's not jump straight into conclusions with these hand-picked scenarios marketed to us and be very skeptical. Not quite there yet with being able to…
And as they retire there's no economic incentive to train juniors up, so when the AI starts fucking up the important things there will be no one who actually knows how it works
I've heard this already from amtrak workers, track allocation was automated a long time ago, but there used to be people who could recognize when the computer made a mistake, now there's no one who has done the job manually enough to correct it.
Student here. Can someone give me one reason why I should continue in software engineering that isn't denial and hopium?
Software engineering will be a profession of the past, similar to how industrial jobs hardly exist.
If you have a strong intuition with software & programming you may want to shift towards applying AI into already existing solutions.
>We believe that a hidden chain of thought presents a unique opportunity for monitoring models. Assuming it is faithful and legible, the hidden chain of thought allows us to "read the mind" of the model and understand its thought process. For example, in the future we may wish to monitor the chain of thought for signs of manipulating the user. However, for this to work the model must have freedom to express its thoug…
It's clear to me that OpenAI is quickly realizing they have no moat. Even this obfuscation of the chain-of-thought isn't really a moat. On top of CoT being pretty easy to implement and tweak, there's a serious push to on-device inference (which imo is the future), so the question is: will GPT-5 and beyond be really that much better than what we can run locally?
What push are you referring to? By whom?
The "safety" example in the "chain-of-thought" widget/preview in the middle of the article is absolutely ridiculous. Take a step back and look at what OpenAI is saying here "an LLM giving detailed instructions on the synthesis of strychnine is unacceptable, here is what was previously generated vs our preferred, neutered content " What's this obsession with "safety" when it comes to LLMs? "This knowledge is perfectly…
ML companies must pre-anticipate legislative and cultural responses prior to them happening. ML will absolutely be used to empower criminal activity just as it is used to empower legit activity, and social media figures and traditional journalists will absolutely attempt to frame it in some exciting way. Just like Telegram is being framed as responsible for terrorism and child abuse.
I tested o1-preview on some coding stuff I've been using gpt-4o for. I am not impressed. The new, more intentional chain of thought logic is apparently not something it can meaningfully apply to a non-trivial codebase. Sadly I think this OpenAI announcement is hot air. I am now (unfortunately) much less enthusiastic about upcoming OpenAI announcements. This is the first one that has been extremely underwhelming (thou…
Though o1 did fail at the puzzle in my profile.
Maybe it's just tougher than even, its author, I had assumed...
I tested o1-preview on some coding stuff I've been using gpt-4o for. I am not impressed. The new, more intentional chain of thought logic is apparently not something it can meaningfully apply to a non-trivial codebase. Sadly I think this OpenAI announcement is hot air. I am now (unfortunately) much less enthusiastic about upcoming OpenAI announcements. This is the first one that has been extremely underwhelming (thou…
I am looking at a TypeScript project with quite an amount of type gymnastics and a particular line of code did not validate with tsc no matter what I have tried. I copy pasted the whole context into o1-preview and it told me what is likely the error I am seeing (and it was a spot on correct letter-by-letter error message including my variable names), explained the problem and provided two solutions, both of which immediately worked.
Another test was I have pasted a smart contract in solidity and naively asked to identify vulnerabilities. It thought for more than a minute and then provided a detailed report of what could go wrong. Much, much deeper than any previous model could do. (No vulnerabilities found because my code is perfect, but that's another story).
This is incredible. In April I used the standard GPT-4 model via ChatGPT to help me reverse engineer the binary bluetooth protocol used by my kitchen fan to integrate it into Home Assistant. It was helpful in a rubber duck way, but could not determine the pattern used to transmit the remaining runtime of the fan in a certain mode. Initial prompt here [0] I pasted the same prompt into o1-preview and o1-mini and both c…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's clear to me that OpenAI is quickly realizing they have no moat. Even this obfuscation of the chain-of-thought isn't really a moat. On top of CoT being pretty easy to implement and tweak, there's a serious push to on-device inference (which imo is the future), so the question is: will GPT-5 and beyond be really that much better than what we can run locally?
I don't understand the idea that they have no moat. Their moat is not technological. It's sociological. Most AI through APIs uses their models. Most consumer use of AI involves their models, or ChatGPT directly. They're clearly not in the "train your own model on your data in your environment" game, as that's a market for someone else. But make no mistake, they have a moat and it is strong.