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

GPT-5.1: A smarter, more conversational ChatGPT

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

731–740 of 766 posts

Re: GPT-5.1: A smarter, more conversational ChatGPT

#731

Post by binary132 »

porridgeraisin wrote: post #263
KalMann wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Expecting every little fact to have an "authoritative source" is just annoying faux intellectualism. You can ask someone why they believe something and listen to their reasoning, decide for yourself if you find it convincing, without invoking such a pretentious phrase. There are conclusions you can think to and reach without an "official citation".

Yeah. And in general, not taking a potshot at who you replied to, the only people who place citations/peer review on that weird faux-intellectual pedestal are people that don't work in academia. As if publishing something in a citeable format automatically makes it a fact that does not need to be checked for reason. Give me any authoritative source, and I can find you completely contradictory, or obviously falsifiabl…

I was actually just referencing the standard Wikipedia annotation that means something approximately like “you should support this somewhat substantial claim with something more than 'trust me bro'”

In other words, 10 pages of LLM blather isn’t doing much to convince me a given answer is actually better.

Re: GPT-5.1: A smarter, more conversational ChatGPT

#732

Post by famahar »

saaaaaam wrote: post #172

I’ve seen various older people that I’m connected with on Facebook posting screenshots of chats they’ve had with ChatGPT. It’s quite bizarre from that small sample how many of them take pride in “baiting” or “bantering” with ChatGPT and then post screenshots showing how they “got one over” on the AI. I guess there’s maybe some explanation - feeling alienated by technology, not understanding it, and so needing to “pro…

This reminds me of a short sci-fi story I read. World was controlled by AI but there were some people that wanted to rebel against it. In the end, one of them was able to infiltrate the AI and destroy it. But the AI knew this is what the rebel wanted, so it created this whole scenario for him to feel inferior. The AI was in no danger, it was too intelligent to be taken down by one person, but it gave exactly what the person wanted. Control the humans by giving them a false sense of control.

Re: GPT-5.1: A smarter, more conversational ChatGPT

#733

Post by DonaldPShimoda »

brookst wrote: post #579
DonaldPShimoda wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. My position is that it was irresponsible to publish these tools before figuring out safety first, and it is irresponsible to continue to offer LLMs that have been trained in an authoritative voice and to not actively seek to educate people on their shortcomings. But, of course, such action would almost certainly result in a hit to the finances, so we can't have that.

Cynicism is so blinding. Alternative take: these are incredibly complex nondeterministic systems and it is impossible to validate perfection in a lab environment because 1) sample sizes are too small, and 2) perfection isn’t possible anyway. All products ship with defects. We can argue about too much or too little or whatever, but there is no world where a new technology or vehicle or really anything is developed to…

Oh, lord, spare me the corporate apologetics.

Releasing a chatbot that confidently states wrong information is bad enough on its own — we know people are easily susceptible to such things. (I mean, c'mon, we had people falling for ELIZA in the '60s!)

But to then immediately position these tools as replacements for search engines, or as study tutors, or as substitutes for professionals in mental health? These aren't "products that shipped with defects"; they are products that were intentionally shipped despite full knowledge that they were harmful in fairly obvious ways, and that's morally reprehensible.

Re: GPT-5.1: A smarter, more conversational ChatGPT

#734

Post by ddmma »

dkersten wrote: post #576

I don’t want more conversational, I want more to the point. Less telling me how great my question is, less about being friendly, instead I want more cold, hard, accurate, direct, and factual results. It’s a machine and a tool, not a person and definitely not my friend.

+ less emojis and colors as candy store

Re: GPT-5.1: A smarter, more conversational ChatGPT

#735

Post by brookst »

wubrr wrote: post #603
brookst wrote: post #585

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re in the minority here. I get it. I prefer cars with no power steering and few comforts. I write lots of my own small home utility apps. That’s just not the relationship most people want to have with tech and products.

I don't know what you're basing your 'minority' and 'most people' claims on, but seems highly unlikely.

You think all of these AI companies with trillions of dollars in investment haven’t thought to do market research?

Does that really seem more likely than the idea that the HN population is not representative of the global market?

Re: GPT-5.1: A smarter, more conversational ChatGPT

#736

Post by brookst »

DonaldPShimoda wrote: post #733
brookst wrote: post #579

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cynicism is so blinding. Alternative take: these are incredibly complex nondeterministic systems and it is impossible to validate perfection in a lab environment because 1) sample sizes are too small, and 2) perfection isn’t possible anyway. All products ship with defects. We can argue about too much or too little or whatever, but there is no world where a new technology or vehicle or really anything is developed to…

Oh, lord, spare me the corporate apologetics. Releasing a chatbot that confidently states wrong information is bad enough on its own — we know people are easily susceptible to such things. (I mean, c'mon, we had people falling for ELIZA in the '60s!) But to then immediately position these tools as replacements for search engines, or as study tutors, or as substitutes for professionals in mental health? These aren't "…

Ad hom attacks instantly declare “not worth engaging with”.

Re: GPT-5.1: A smarter, more conversational ChatGPT

#737

Post by dns_snek »

amosjyng wrote: post #726
dns_snek wrote: post #543

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would think that's the real basis of comparison It's not because that's not the typical case. LLMs encourage people's delusions by default, it's just a question of how receptive you are to them. Anyone who's used ChatGPT has experienced it even if they didn't realize it. It starts with "that's a really thoughtful question that not many people think to ask", and "you're absolutely right [...]". > If AI is better a…

> LLMs encourage people's delusions by default, it's just a question of how receptive you are to them There are absolutely plenty of people who encourage others' flat earth delusions by default, it's just a question of how receptive you are to them. > There is no good that comes from having all of your perspective distortions validated as facts. They turn into outright delusions without external grounding. Again, tha…

> If you don't like an LLM, then don't interact with it, just as you wouldn't interact with a human you dislike.

It's not a matter of liking or disliking something. It's a question of whether that thing is going to heal or destroy your psyche over time.

You're talking about personal responsibility while we're talking about public policy. If people are using LLMs as a substitute for their closest friends and therapist, will that help or hurt them? We need to know whether we should be strongly discouraging it before it becomes another public health disaster.

Re: GPT-5.1: A smarter, more conversational ChatGPT

#738

Post by rightbyte »

ChildOfChaos wrote: post #653
dkersten wrote: post #576

I don’t want more conversational, I want more to the point. Less telling me how great my question is, less about being friendly, instead I want more cold, hard, accurate, direct, and factual results. It’s a machine and a tool, not a person and definitely not my friend.

Agreed. But there is a fairly large and very loud group of people that went insane when 4o was discontinued and demanded to have it back. A group of people seem to have forged weird relationships with AI and that is what they want. It's extremely worrying. Heck, the ex Prime Minister of the UK said he loved ChatGPT recently because it tells him how great he is.

> there is a fairly large and very loud group of people that went insane when 4o was discontinued

Maybe I am notpicking but I think you could argue they were insane before it was discontinued.

Re: GPT-5.1: A smarter, more conversational ChatGPT

#739

Post by pbiggar »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #171
pbiggar wrote: post #103

I've switched over to https://thaura.ai , which is working on being a more ethical AI. A side effect I hadn't realized is missing the drama over the latest OpenAI changes.

Get them to put a call out of support for LGBTQ+ groups as well and I'll support them. Probably a hard sell to "ethical" people though...

Why would that be a hard sell?

Re: GPT-5.1: A smarter, more conversational ChatGPT

#740

Post by nl »

thewebguyd wrote: post #622
nl wrote: post #545

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it odd? Some people treat their pets like they humans. Not sure why this is worse particularly.

The big difference is their pet doesn't talk back, and doesn't agree with/encourage them go through with suicide or other harmful behaviors. I suppose it wouldn't be as concerning of a problem if all these LLMs weren't so sycophantic and affirming of whatever the user tells them/asks of them. As it stands now, they are far too confident. They need a mechanism to disagree, or discourage harmful behaviors, or to just o…

This seems to be different to "it's odd"

Yes, safeguards need to be improved. When they are does that mean it is suddenly not odd?

Post reply on HN