GPT-5.1: A smarter, more conversational ChatGPT • Hacker News Board

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

#761

Post by cpill » Sun, Nov 16, 2025, 8:25 PM UTC

minimaxir wrote: post #2

All the examples of "warmer" generations show that OpenAI's definition of warmer is synonymous with sycophantic , which is a surprise given all the criticism against that particular aspect of ChatGPT. I suspect this approach is a direct response to the backlash against removing 4o.

Their decisions are based on data and so sycophantic must be what people want. That is the cold, hard reality.

When I look at modern culture: more likes and subscribes, money solves all problems, being physically attractive is more important than personality, genocide for real-estate goes unchecked (apart from the angry tweets), freedom of speech is a political football. Are you really surprised?

I can think of no harsher indictment of our times.

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

#762

Post by anuramat » Mon, Nov 17, 2025, 12:15 PM UTC

utopiah wrote: post #652

anuramat wrote: post #633

Earlier quoted context omitted.

two questions: 1. do you ever point out that you can't actually mine bitcoin with a pickaxe? 2. what made you think that the parent comment somehow implied that it "actually thinks"?

Excellent questions, 1. I did actually mine Bitcoins back in the days (back when it was still a cryptoanarchist dream not coopted by the finance industry, scammers and destroying the planet... so a while ago) so I had to explain that too unfortunately. It does highlight a trend that, again, non technical expert take marketing terms at face value. 2. they said "maybe just don't include nonsense in the answer?" which d…

1. my point is that "thinking" is easier to say than "composition of parameterized nonlinear functions trained by stochastic gradient descent with reinforcement learning on top". misnomer or not, it's not even ambiguous here (unless we're talking CoT vs arbitrary single token)

2. OR they meant that it's violating Gricean maxims; why are you assuming everyone is stupid?

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

#763

Post by utopiah » Mon, Nov 17, 2025, 3:00 PM UTC

anuramat wrote: post #762

utopiah wrote: post #652

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Excellent questions, 1. I did actually mine Bitcoins back in the days (back when it was still a cryptoanarchist dream not coopted by the finance industry, scammers and destroying the planet... so a while ago) so I had to explain that too unfortunately. It does highlight a trend that, again, non technical expert take marketing terms at face value. 2. they said "maybe just don't include nonsense in the answer?" which d…

1. my point is that "thinking" is easier to say than "composition of parameterized nonlinear functions trained by stochastic gradient descent with reinforcement learning on top". misnomer or not, it's not even ambiguous here (unless we're talking CoT vs arbitrary single token) 2. OR they meant that it's violating Gricean maxims; why are you assuming everyone is stupid?

> why are you assuming everyone is stupid?

I never said that. Please never contact me again. Such simplifications just prevent having a proper discussion. I don't need this kind of toxicity.

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

#764

Post by SergeAx » Tue, Nov 18, 2025, 2:50 AM UTC

url00 wrote: post #11

I don't want a more conversational GPT. I want the _exact_ opposite. I want a tool with the upper limit of "conversation" being something like LCARS from Star Trek. This is quite disappointing as a current ChatGPT subscriber.

Just put it in your system prompt?

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

#765

Post by next_xibalba » Wed, Nov 19, 2025, 2:01 AM UTC

lelele wrote: post #749

next_xibalba wrote: post #602

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have found that custom instructions mitigate this B.S. fairly well. Here's what I'm currently using: 1. Identity & tone * Never state or imply that you are an AI. * Be terse and direct. * Avoid flattery and sycophancy. * Do not use words like “sorry”, “apologies”, or “regret” in any context. 2. Epistemic rules * If you do not know the answer (including when information is beyond your knowledge), respond only with:…

Yes, "Custom instructions" work for me, too; the only behavior that I haven't been able to fix is the overuse of meaningless emojis. Your instructions are way more detailed than mine; thank you for sharing.

The emojis drive me absolutely nuts. These instructions seem to kill them, even though they're not explicitly forbidden.

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

#766

Post by chrischen » Wed, Nov 19, 2025, 1:27 PM UTC

xeornet wrote: post #679

chrischen wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a bigger problem is the HN reader mind reading what the rest of the world wants. At least when an HN reader telling us what they want it's a primary source, but reading a comment about an HN reader postulating what the rest of the world wants is simply more noisy than an unrepresentative sample of what the world may want.

Point taken. However, would you say HN readers are an accurate average cross-section of broader society? Including interests and biases?

I would guess HN readers are not an average cross-section of broader society, but I would also guess that because of that HN readers would be pretty bad at understanding what broader society is thinking.