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

GPT-5.5

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

701–710 of 1001 posts

Re: GPT-5.5

#701

Post by wirgil1 »

simondotau wrote: post #484
ofjcihen wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see this comparison made constantly and for me it misses the mark. When you use abstractions you are still deterministically creating something you understand in depth with individual pieces you understand. When you vibe something you understand only the prompt that started it and whether or not it spits out what you were expecting. Hence feeling lost when you suddenly lose access to frontier models and take a look…

Perhaps then, the better analogy is like being promoted at your company and having people under you doing the grunt work.

How closely you micromanage it is a factor as well though

Re: GPT-5.5

#702

Post by 32df »

flemhans wrote: post #674
Spartan-S63 wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At some point, because these models are trained on existing data, you cease significant technological advancement--at least in tech (as it relates to programming languages, paradigms, etc). You also deskill an entire group of people to the extent that when an LLM fails to accomplish a task, it becomes nearly impossible to actually accomplish it manually. It's learned-helplessness on a large scale.

Provided you believe LLMs cannot perform research.

If they could OAI would be all over it. But they shut down that prism project.

So.......

Re: GPT-5.5

#703

Post by bkyan »

gurjeet wrote: post #649
bkyan wrote: post #567

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, what is "heartbeats", exactly?

> Today we launched heartbeats in Codex: automations that maintain context inside a single thread over time. https://x.com/pashmerepat/status/2044836560147984461

Thanks!

Re: GPT-5.5

#704

Post by wakawaka28 »

noosphr wrote: post #528
_alternator_ wrote: post #330

> One engineer at NVIDIA who had early access to the model went as far as to say: "Losing access to GPT‑5.5 feels like I've had a limb amputated.” This quote is more sinister than I think was intended; it likely applies to all frontier coding models. As they get better, we quickly come to rely on them for coding. It's like playing a game on God Mode. Engineers become dependent; it's truly addictive. This matches my o…

LLMs upend a few centuries of labor theory. The current market is predicated on the assumption that labor is atomic and has little bargaining power (minus unions). While capital has huge bargaining power and can effectively put whatever price it wants on labor (in markets where labor is plentiful, which is most of them). What happens to a company used to extracting surplus value from labor when the labor is provided…

Sounds like communist gobbledygook. This is not "destroying labor theory" any more than outsourcing did. Call me when we don't even need to prompt the shit ever again or validate results, and when the stuff runs unlimited without scarce resources as input.

Re: GPT-5.5

#705

Post by linzhangrun »

_alternator_ wrote: post #330

> One engineer at NVIDIA who had early access to the model went as far as to say: "Losing access to GPT‑5.5 feels like I've had a limb amputated.” This quote is more sinister than I think was intended; it likely applies to all frontier coding models. As they get better, we quickly come to rely on them for coding. It's like playing a game on God Mode. Engineers become dependent; it's truly addictive. This matches my o…

[dead]

Re: GPT-5.5

#706

Post by atmanactive »

ant6n wrote: post #362

My impression has been that ChatGPT-5.4 has been getting dumber and more exhausting in the last couple of weeks. Like it makes a lot of obvious mistakes, ignores (parts of) prompts. keeps forgetting important facts or requirement. Maybe this is a crazy theory, but I sometimes feel like they gimp their existing models before a big release to you'll notice more of a "step".

Definitely feels like it.

Re: GPT-5.5

#708

Post by tedsanders »

pants2 wrote: post #293

Labs still aren't publishing ARC-AGI-3 scores, even though it's been out for some time. Is it because the numbers are too embarrassing?

Honest answer is that it isn't done running yet. It takes some human bandwidth and time to run, so results weren't ready by this morning. We don't know what the score will be, but will probably go up on the leaderboard sometime soon. I personally don't put a lot of stock in the ARC-AGI evals, as it's not relevant to most work that people do, but should still be interesting to see as a measure of reasoning ability.

(I work at OpenAI.)

Re: GPT-5.5

#709

Post by subhobroto »

noosphr wrote: post #528
_alternator_ wrote: post #330

> One engineer at NVIDIA who had early access to the model went as far as to say: "Losing access to GPT‑5.5 feels like I've had a limb amputated.” This quote is more sinister than I think was intended; it likely applies to all frontier coding models. As they get better, we quickly come to rely on them for coding. It's like playing a game on God Mode. Engineers become dependent; it's truly addictive. This matches my o…

LLMs upend a few centuries of labor theory. The current market is predicated on the assumption that labor is atomic and has little bargaining power (minus unions). While capital has huge bargaining power and can effectively put whatever price it wants on labor (in markets where labor is plentiful, which is most of them). What happens to a company used to extracting surplus value from labor when the labor is provided…

> Anyone not using in house models is signing up to find out.

What are they finding out exactly? That Claude Max for $200/mo is heavily subsidized and it will soon cost $10k/mo?

> What happens to a company used to extracting surplus value from labor when the labor is provided by another company which is not only bigger but unlike traditional labor can withhold its labor indefinitely (because labor is now just another for of capital and capital doesn't need to eat)?

This can be trivially answered by a thought experiment. Let's pick a market where labor is plentiful - fast food.

Now what happens to McDonald's where they rent perfect robots from NoosphrFoodBotsInc? NoosphrFoodBotsInc bots build the perfect burger everytime meeting McDonald's standards. It actually exceeds those standards for McDonald AddictedCustomerPlus tier customers.

As the sole owner of NoosphrFoodBotsInc (you need 0 human employees to run your company, all your employees are bots), what are your choices?

Re: GPT-5.5

#710

Post by mikercampbell »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #612
noosphr wrote: post #528

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LLMs upend a few centuries of labor theory. The current market is predicated on the assumption that labor is atomic and has little bargaining power (minus unions). While capital has huge bargaining power and can effectively put whatever price it wants on labor (in markets where labor is plentiful, which is most of them). What happens to a company used to extracting surplus value from labor when the labor is provided…

This is our one chance to reach the fabled post-scarcity society. If we fail at this now, we'll end up in a totalitarian cyberpunk dystopia instead.

Manufactured Scarcity is the new post-scarcity
Post reply on HN