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

761–770 of 1001 posts

Re: GPT-4.5

#761

Post by netdevphoenix »

IAmGraydon wrote: post #476

Between this and Claude 3.7, I'm really beginning to believe that LLM development has hit a wall, and it might actually be impossible to push much farther for reasonable amounts of money and resources. They're incredible tools indeed and I use them on a daily basis to multiply my productivity, but yeah - I think we've all overshot this in a big way.

> LLM development has hit a wall

The writing has been on the wall since 2024. None of the LLM releases have been groundbreaking they have all been lateral improvements and I believe the trend will continue this year with make them more efficient (like DeepSeek), make them faster or make them hallucinate less

Re: GPT-4.5

#762

Post by afastow »

camdenreslink wrote: post #633
ahmadtbk wrote: post #612

Will this pop the AI bubble?

I think if GPT-5 is very underwhelming we could start to see some shifting of opinion on what kind of return on investment all of this will result in.

This is GPT-5, or rather what they clearly intended to be GPT-5. The pricing makes it obvious that the model is massive, but what they ended up with wasn't good enough to justify calling it more than 4.5.

Re: GPT-4.5

#763

Post by amelius »

With every new model I'd like to see some examples of conversations where the old model performed badly and the new model fixes it. And, perhaps more importantly, I'd like to see some examples where the new model can still be improved.

Re: GPT-4.5

#764

Post by yard2010 »

ur-whale wrote: post #79
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…

AI as it stands in 2025 is an amazing technology, but it is not a product at all . As a result, OpenAI simply does not have a business model, even if they are trying to convince the world that they do. My bet is that they're currently burning through other people's capital at an amazing rate, but that they are light-years from profitability They are also being chased by fierce competition and OpenSource which is very…

Sir they are selling text by the ounce just like farmers sold tomatoes before Walmart, How is that not a business model?

Re: GPT-4.5

#765

Post by otabdeveloper4 »

crazygringo wrote: post #258
swatcoder wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We look forward to learning more about its strengths, capabilities, and potential applications in real-world settings. If GPT‑4.5 delivers unique value for your use case, your feedback (opens in a new window) will play an important role in guiding our decision. "We don't really know what this is good for, but spent a lot of money and time making it and are under intense pressure to announce new things right now. If…

> We don't really know what this is good for Oh come on. Think how long of a gap there was between the first microcomputer and VisiCalc. Or between the start of the internet and social networking. First of all, it's going to take us 10 years to figure out how to use LLM's to their full productive potential. And second of all, it's going to take us collectively a long time to also figure out how much accuracy is neces…

> to their full productive potential

You're assuming that point is somewhere above the current hype peak. I'm guessing it won't be, it will be quite a bit below the current expectations of "solving global warming", "curing cancer" and "making work obsolete".

Re: GPT-4.5

#766

Post by jdiez17 »

tkgally wrote: post #276
tmaly wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would like to see a humor test. So far, I have not seen any model response that has made me laugh.

How does the following stand-up routine by Claude 3.7 Sonnet work for you? https://gally.net/temp/20250225claudestandup2.html

Okay, you know what? I laughed a few times. Yeah it may not work as an actual stand up routine to a general audience, it’s kinda cringe (as most LLM-generated content), but it was legitimately entertaining to read.

Re: GPT-4.5

#767

Post by int_19h »

crystal_revenge wrote: post #504
serjester wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suppose this was their final hurrah after two failed attempts at training GPT-5 with the traditional pre-training paradigm. Just confirms reasoning models are the only way forward.

> Just confirms reasoning models are the only way forward. Reasoning models are roughly the equivalent to allow Hamiltonian Monte-Carlo models to "warm up" (i.e. start sampling from the typical set). This, unsurprisingly, yields better results (after all LLMs are just fancy Monte-carlo models in the end). However, it is extremely unlikely this improvement is without pretty reasonable limitations. Letting your HMC war…

Reasoning models can solve tasks that non-reasoning ones were unable to; how is that not an improvement? What constitutes "major" is subjective - if a "minor" improvement in overall performance means that the model can now successfully perform a task it was unable to solve before, that is a major advancement for that particular task.

Re: GPT-4.5

#768

Post by afastow »

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.

You're not a conspiracy theorist, you're just recognizing that the reality doesn't match the hype. It's boring and not fun but in this situation the answer is almost always that the hype is wrong, not the reality.

Re: GPT-4.5

#769

Post by chrisandchris »

MichaelZuo wrote: post #724
anoncareer0212 wrote: post #652

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The link has data. The link shows a significant reduction. grep hallucination, or, https://imgur.com/a/mkDxe78 .

I really doubt LLM benchmarks are reflective of real world user experience ever since they claimed GPT-4o hallucinated less than the original GPT-4.

I begin to believe LLM benchmarks are like european car mileage specs. They say its 4 Liter / 100km but everyone knows it's at least 30% off (same with WLTP for EVs).

Re: GPT-4.5

#770

Post by sumedh »

rakejake wrote: post #166
ls_stats wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I feel like OpenAI is pursuing AGI I don't think so, the "AGI guy" was Ilya Sutskever, he is gone, he wanted to make OpenAI "less comercial", AGI is just a buzzword for Altmann.

Right. A good chunk of the "old guard" is now gone - Ilya to SSI, Mira and a bunch of others to a new venture called Thinking Machines, Alec Radford etc. Remains to be seen if OpenAI will be the leader or if other players catch up.

The page still has Mira Muratis name under Exec Leadership
Post reply on HN