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

691–700 of 1001 posts

Re: GPT-4.5

#691

Post by hobo_in_library »

barrell wrote: post #616
anxoo wrote: post #516

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AI skeptics have predicted 10 of the last 0 bursts of the AI bubble. any day now...

Out of curiosity, what timeframe are you talking about? The recent LLM explosion, or the decades long AI research? I consider myself an AI skeptic and as soon as the hype train went full steam, I assumed a crash/bubble burst was inevitable. Still do. With the rare exception, I don’t know of anyone who has expected the bubble to burst so quickly (within two years). 10 times in the last 2 years would be every two and a…

Yes, the bubble will burst, just like the dotcom bubble burst 25 years ago.

But that didn't mean the internet should be ignored, and the same holds true for AI today IMO

Re: GPT-4.5

#692

Post by csomar »

erulabs wrote: post #66

Finally a scaling wall? This is apparently (based on pricing) using about an order of magnitude more compute, and is only maybe 10% more intelligent. Ideally DeepSeeks optimizations help bring the costs way down, but do any AI researchers want to comment on if this changes the overall shape of the scaling curve?

We have hit that wall almost 2 years ago with gpt-4. There was clearly no scaling as gpt-4 was already decently smart and if you got x2 smarter you’ll be more capable than anything on the market today. All models doing today (R1 and friends; and Claude) are trying to optimize this local maxima toward generating more useful responses (ie: code when it comes to Claude).

AI, at its current form, is a Deep Seek of compressed knowledge in a 30-50gb of interconnected data. I think we’ll look at this as trying to train networks on corpus of data and expecting them to have a hold of reality. Our brains are trained on “reality” which is not the “real” reality as your vision is limited to the visible spectrum. But if you want a network to behave like a human then maybe give him what a human see.

There is also the possibility that there is a physical limit to intelligence. I don’t see any elephants doing PhDs and the smartest of humans are just a small configuration away from insanity.

Re: GPT-4.5

#693

Post by throwaway314155 »

kadushka wrote: post #669
throwaway314155 wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A gift to science This is hardly recognizable as science. edit: Sorry, didn't feel this was a controversial opinion. What I meant to say was that for so-called science, this is not reproducible in any way whatsoever. Further, this page in particular has all the hallmarks of _marketing_ copy, not science. Sometimes a failure is just a failure, not necessarily a gift. People could tell scaling wasn't working well bef…

People could tell scaling wasn't working well before the release of GPT 4.5 Who could tell? Who has tried scaling up to this level?

https://www.reuters.com/technology/artificial-intelligence/o...

> Ilya Sutskever, co-founder of AI labs Safe Superintelligence (SSI) and OpenAI, told Reuters recently that results from scaling up pre-training - the phase of training an AI model that use s a vast amount of unlabeled data to understand language patterns and structures - have plateaued.

Re: GPT-4.5

#694

Post by Foobar8568 »

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…

Someone in another comment said that gpt-4 32k had somewhat the same cost (ok 10% cheaper), what was a pain was more the latency and speed than actual cost given the increase in productivity for our usage.

Re: GPT-4.5

#695

Post by ukuina »

stevage wrote: post #528
simonw wrote: post #342

I got gpt-4.5-preview to summarize this discussion thread so far (at 324 comments): hn-summary.sh 43197872 -m gpt-4.5-preview Using this script: https://til.simonwillison.net/llms/claude-hacker-news-themes... Here's the result: https://gist.github.com/simonw/5e9f5e94ac8840f698c280293d399... It took 25797 input tokens and 1225 input tokens, for a total cost (calculated using https://tools.simonwillison.net/llm-prices…

Huh. Disregarding the 4.5-specific bit here, a browser extension or possibly website that did this in general could be really useful. Maybe even something that just noticed whenever you visited a site that had had significant HN discussion in the past, then let you trigger a summary.

My site https://hackyournews.com does this!

Been keeping it alive and free for 18 months.

Re: GPT-4.5

#697

Post by vjerancrnjak »

tmaly wrote: post #95
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…

rethinking your comment "was that all" I am listening to the stream now and had a thought. Most of the new models that have come out in the past few weeks have been great at coding and logical reasoning. But 4o has been better at creative writing. I am wondering if 4.5 is going to be even better at creative writing than 4o.

I still find all of them lacking on creative writing. The models are severely crippled by tokenization, complete lack of understanding of language rhythm.

They can’t generate a simple haiku consistently, something larger is more out of reach.

For example, give it a piece of poetry and ask for new verses and it just sucks at replicating the language structure and rhythm of original verses.

Re: GPT-4.5

#698

Post by rrrrrrrrrrrryan »

raytopia wrote: post #130
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…

Now the real question about AI automation starts. Is it cheaper to pay a human to do the task or a AI company?

I was about to comment that humans consume orders of magnitude less energy, but then I checked the numbers, and it looks like an average person consumes way more energy throughout their day (food, transportation, electricity usage, etc) than GPT-4.5 would at 1 query per minute over 24 hours.

Re: GPT-4.5

#699

Post by torginus »

camdenreslink wrote: post #592
torginus wrote: post #396

Call me a conspiracy theorist, but this, combined with the extremely embarassing way Claude is playing Pokemon, makes me feel this is an effort by AI companies to make LLMs look bad - setting up the hype cycle for the next thing they have in the pipeline.

The next thing in the pipeline is definitely agents, and making the underlying tech look bad won't help sell that at all.

Agents as they are right now is literally just the LLM calling itself in a loop + having the ability to use tools/interact with their environment. I don't know if there's anything profoundly disruptive cooking in that space.

Re: GPT-4.5

#700

Post by tonyhart7 »

asadotzler wrote: post #636
pinkmuffinere wrote: post #615

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t mean to disagree too strongly, but just to illustrate another perspective: I don’t feel this is a weak result. Consider if you built a new version that you _thought_ would perform much better, and then you found that it offered marginal-but-not-amazing improvement over the previous version. It’s likely that you will keep iterating. But in the meantime what do you do with your marginal performance gain? Do you…

I've worked for very large software companies, some of the biggest products ever made, and never in 25 years can I recall us shipping an update we didn't know was an improvement. The idea that you'd ship something to hundreds of millions of users and say "maybe better, we're not sure, let us know" is outrageous.

they forced to ship it anyway, cause what??? this cost money and I mean a lot of fcking money

You better ship it

Post reply on HN