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

The GPT-5 Launch Was Concerning

blog.charliemeyer.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 97 posts

Re: The GPT-5 Launch Was Concerning

#81

Post by amanaplanacanal »

infecto wrote: post #78
dylan604 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like how when your illogical notion is challenged, you respond by saying the challenger is being emotional. There is no point in saying that an AI company can just ignore its R&D. There is no company without the R&D. Because of that, any conversation pretending it doesn't exist is pointless. There is no constructive conversation with that as the premise.

You’re arguing against a point I’m not making. I’m not saying R&D isn’t necessary or that it “doesn’t exist”, I’m saying that operationally, the service itself runs at a profit before accounting for R&D. That matters because it means they have a viable revenue engine that could, in theory, fund a sustainable R&D budget if they adjusted spend. That’s a very different conversation than “pretend R&D doesn’t matter.” No…

I have no horse in this race, but... Hasn't a huge amount of R&D already been spent? You can't retroactively make that go away.

Re: The GPT-5 Launch Was Concerning

#83

Post by infecto »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #81
infecto wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re arguing against a point I’m not making. I’m not saying R&D isn’t necessary or that it “doesn’t exist”, I’m saying that operationally, the service itself runs at a profit before accounting for R&D. That matters because it means they have a viable revenue engine that could, in theory, fund a sustainable R&D budget if they adjusted spend. That’s a very different conversation than “pretend R&D doesn’t matter.” No…

I have no horse in this race, but... Hasn't a huge amount of R&D already been spent? You can't retroactively make that go away.

Correct, past R&D spend is already sunk and can’t be undone. But that’s why it’s useful to separate sunk costs from future operating costs when evaluating viability.

The relevant question is whether the ongoing revenue from the existing product is strong enough to support a sustainable level of R&D going forward. If your runtime margins are healthy, you have options: scale back R&D burn, focus on incremental improvements, or use the profits to fund more ambitious projects.

Re: The GPT-5 Launch Was Concerning

#84

Post by infecto »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #79
infecto wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, out of all the quotes to call out the weakest one was picked.

So you admit he was lying then. If he is a known liar, then we know what to expect, I guess.

I am not admitting anything as I don’t have any skin in the game. It’s just a weak hyperbolic quote compared to the PR narrative.

Re: The GPT-5 Launch Was Concerning

#85

Post by JohnBooty »

NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #51
gtirloni wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With those people being business owners, investors, etc, 100% of the time. The other 99% would like automation to make their lives easier. Who wouldn't want the promised tech utopia? Unfortunately, that's not happening so it's understandable that people are more concerned than joyous about AI.

>With those people being business owners, investors, etc, 100% of the time. How can one run a business by replacing humans, if no humans are left with enough income to buy your products? I suspect that the desire to "replace humans" runs far deeper than just shortsighted business wants.

Two things.

One, a lot of human jobs have been replaced by machines before. Refrigerators eliminated the jobs of all those guys who used to deliver ice for your icebox every day. And so on. Those were real human beings and I'm sure many of them had families. There was real pain but it was ultimately probably a huge net positive. On a much larger scale, the microcomputer revolution of ~1975-present certainly does not seem to have reduced the number of human jobs.

Two, I am not the biggest fan of capitalism, but this is an area where it works pretty well as a self-balancing system because companies still need to compete with each other. If competing companies A and B each eliminate a bunch of human jobs thanks to AI, they're still locked in an existential struggle. They need to outcompete and outperform each other. They will shift that money to other expenditures: on AI tech, humans doing other jobs, capital expenditures, whatever. Jobs will be created or sustained in other companies providing those goods and services.

It's not foolproof, and it can certainly devastate particular regions, because the money may now flow out of those regions instead of being spent on local salaries.

There is a lot of change, and a lot of very very real pain to come, but if it is anything at all like past technology revolutions the net gains will also be real.

Re: The GPT-5 Launch Was Concerning

#86

Post by baobun »

AlexandrB wrote: post #19
coldpie wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think anyone serious is talking about AGI from LLMs, no.

Only if you consider Sam Altman not serious: https://www.tomsguide.com/ai/chatgpt/sam-altman-claims-agi-i... I find this pattern in tech hype really frustrating. Someone in a leadership role in a major tech company/VC promises something outrageous. Time passes and the promise never materializes. People then retcon the idea that "everybody knew that wasn't going to happen". Well either "everybody" doesn't include Elon…

There's also this deluded-CEO/grounded-CEO routine between Altman and Nadela. Altman will be quoted saying something outrageous in social/mainstream-media which Nadela can then later tone down, add nuance and be realistic about in some firechat or podcast to address the minority who understands, will listen, and would criticize.

It does look like "A lie will make it halfway around the world while the truth is busy lacing its boots" is a major part of a communication strategy.

Re: The GPT-5 Launch Was Concerning

#87

Post by tim333 »

anonzzzies wrote: post #17
FergusArgyll wrote: post #11

Maybe the brain drain was real? we'll find out from gemini 3 I guess

For sure, but not for that reason; there is currently no one with a plan how to go from current (LLMs) to a better model. It's some 'more focused training' 'better prompting' 'agentic' 'smarter lookups' 'better tooling'. But fundamentally, this model is simply shagged out and it'll get a little better with the above, but the jump everyone is waiting for cannot happen without a new model invention.

No one you know of but I'm sure people are thinking about it.

Which reminds me that one of the most obvious failings of LLMs is they never say "I've been thinking about that and have a new idea." The thinking leaning thing needs work.

Re: The GPT-5 Launch Was Concerning

#88

Post by tim333 »

nunez wrote: post #77
emccue wrote: post #16

I asked it to make a drawing of the US with every state numbered from biggest to smallest with 1 being the largest. Maine was #89 (That is not a typo.) and Oregon was #1. OpenAI as a company simply cannot exist without a constant influx of investor money. Burning money on every request is not a viable business model. Companies built on OpenAI/Anthropic are similarly deeply unprofitable businesses. OpenAI needs to con…

Today I learned that Washington is bigger than Texas, and Alaska is smaller than Florida! https://chatgpt.com/share/6896216c-c57c-8012-8241-604b255191... PhDs need to catch up!

I tried a fairly basic Pokemon Go question - which pokemon are resistant to ghost attacks, and it got it wrong - said normal types are immune. Which is wrong. ASI is not quite with us yet.
Post reply on HN