711–720 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does the following stand-up routine by Claude 3.7 Sonnet work for you? https://gally.net/temp/20250225claudestandup2.html
reddit tier humor, truly it's just regurgitating overly emphasized cliches in a disgustingly enthusiastic tone
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…
This has been my suspicion for a long time - OpenAI have indeed been working on "GPT5", but training and running it is proving so expensive (and its actual reasoning abilities only marginally stronger than GPT4) that there's just no market for it. It points to an overall plateau being reached in the performance of the transformer architecture.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Certainly hope so. The tech billionaires are little to excited to achieve AGI and replace the workforce.
TBH, with the safety/alignment paradigm we have, workforce replacement was not my top concern when we hit AGI. A pause / lull in capabilities would be hugely helpful so that we can figure how not to die along with the lightcone...
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’d be great if someone would do that with the same data and prompt to other models. I did like the formatting and attributions but didn’t necessarily want attributions like that for every section. I’m also not sure if it’s fully matching what I’m seeing in the thread but maybe the data I’m seeing is just newer.
Good call. Here's the same exact prompt run against: GPT-4o: https://gist.github.com/simonw/592d651ec61daec66435a6f718c06... GPT-4o Mini: https://gist.github.com/simonw/cc760217623769f0d7e4687332bce... Claude 3.7 Sonnet: https://gist.github.com/simonw/6f11e1974e4d613258b3237380e0e... Claude 3.5 Haiku: https://gist.github.com/simonw/c178f02c97961e225eb615d4b9a1d... Gemini 2.0 Flash: https://gist.github.com/simonw/0c6f…
Now, if you'd want to generate training data, I could see wanting to have the best answers possible, where even slight nuances would matter. 4.5 seems to adhere to instructions much better than the others. You might get the same result w/ generating n samples and "reflect" on them with a mixture of models, but then again you might not. Going through thousands of generations manually is also costly.
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.
It is interesting that they are focusing a large part of this release on the model having a higher "EQ" (Emotional Quotient). We're far from the days of "this is not a person, we do not want to make it addictive" and getting a firm foot on the territory of "here's your new AI friend". This is very visible in the example comparing 4o with 4.5 when the user is complaining about failing a test, where 4o's response is wh…
I don't know if I fully agree. The input clearly shows the need for emotional support more than "how do I pass this test?" The answer by 4o is comical even if you know you're talking to a machine. It reminds me of the advice to "not offer solutions when a woman talks about her problems, but just listen."
I guess there's a trade-off between being human and being useful. But this isn't unique to LLMs, it's similar to how one wouldn't expect a deep personal connection with a customer service professional.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’d be great if someone would do that with the same data and prompt to other models. I did like the formatting and attributions but didn’t necessarily want attributions like that for every section. I’m also not sure if it’s fully matching what I’m seeing in the thread but maybe the data I’m seeing is just newer.
Good call. Here's the same exact prompt run against: GPT-4o: https://gist.github.com/simonw/592d651ec61daec66435a6f718c06... GPT-4o Mini: https://gist.github.com/simonw/cc760217623769f0d7e4687332bce... Claude 3.7 Sonnet: https://gist.github.com/simonw/6f11e1974e4d613258b3237380e0e... Claude 3.5 Haiku: https://gist.github.com/simonw/c178f02c97961e225eb615d4b9a1d... Gemini 2.0 Flash: https://gist.github.com/simonw/0c6f…
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…
How many eggs does that include??!