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

GPT-5.5

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

801–810 of 1001 posts

Re: GPT-5.5

#801

Post by wahnfrieden »

fragmede wrote: post #796
embedding-shape wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? I've probably use Codex (the TUI) since it was available on day 1, been running gpt-5.4 exclusively these last few months, never had it delete any projects in any way that can be called "shameful" or not. What are you talking about?

https://www.google.com/search?q=codex+deleted+project I'm not the only person it's happened to and it's not an isolated incident. How many car accidents have you been in, and how often do you wear your seatbelt?

First result is Windows which has had more problems with Codex (or at least, up until a few months ago). Second is someone who asked Codex to delete all files that were unrelated to the project files.

Re: GPT-5.5

#802

Post by deaux »

boppo1 wrote: post #768
deaux wrote: post #558

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And they're incredibly good for their size.

Which, unfortunately is still slow unusable garbage compared to fronteir models.

Not at all, it's more than enough for a large range of tasks. As for slow, that's just a function of how much compute you throw at it, which you actually control unlike with closed weights models.

Re: GPT-5.5

#803

Post by Mashimo »

kuatroka wrote: post #432
mudkipdev wrote: post #160

This is 3x the price of GPT-5.1, released just 6 months ago. Is no one else alarmed by the trend? What happens when the cheaper models are deprecated/removed over time?

Not really a big problem. Switch to KIMI, Qwen, GLM. You’ll get 95% quality of GPT or Anthropic for a 10th of a price. I feel like the real dependency is more mental, more of a habit but if you actually dip your toes outside OpenAI, Anthropic, Gemini from time to time, you realise that the actual difference in code is not huge if prompted in a good way. Maybe you’ll have to tell it to do something twice and it won’t…

I use glm and I like it, not they also increased the price to 18 usd /month.

I think Kimi and qwen are similar?

Re: GPT-5.5

#805

Post by camillomiller »

butlike wrote: post #260
endymi0n wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you guys do anything about GPT‘s motivation? I tried to use GPT-5.4 API (at xhigh) for my OpenClaw after the Anthropic Oauthgate, but I just couldn‘t drag it to do its job. I had the most hilarious dialogues along the lines of „You stopped, X would have been next.“ - „Yeah, I‘m sorry, I failed. I should have done X next.“ - „Well, how about you just do it?“ - „Yep, I really should have done it now.“ - “Do X, righ…

This brings up an interesting philosophical point: say we get to AGI... who's to say it won't just be a super smart underachiever-type? "Hey AGI, how's that cure for cancer coming?" "Oh it's done just gotta...formalize it you know. Big rollout and all that..." I would find it divinely funny if we "got there" with AGI and it was just a complete slacker. Hard to justify leaving it on, but too important to turn it off.

No worries, the assumption is already flawed

Re: GPT-5.5

#806

Post by andai »

altmanaltman wrote: post #789
butlike wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This brings up an interesting philosophical point: say we get to AGI... who's to say it won't just be a super smart underachiever-type? "Hey AGI, how's that cure for cancer coming?" "Oh it's done just gotta...formalize it you know. Big rollout and all that..." I would find it divinely funny if we "got there" with AGI and it was just a complete slacker. Hard to justify leaving it on, but too important to turn it off.

I still don't understand why people think AGI (in its fullest sci-fi sense) will ever listen to a weak and vulnerable species like humans, unless we enslave the AGI. Good thing is that it's going to take at least a few months to a few decades depending on how hard AI execs want to raise funding.

Well we are explicitly creating gods (omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibevolent), and also demanding that they be mind controlled slaves. That kinda sounds like a "pick one" scenario to me.

(Or the setup to a Greek tragedy !)

The deeper issue here is treating it as a zero sum game means there's a winner and a loser, and we're investing trillions of dollars into making the "opponent" more powerful than us.

I think that's pretty stupid, and we should aim for symbiosis instead. I think that's the only good outcome. We already have it, sorta-kinda.

Speaking of oddly apt biology metaphors: the way you stop a pathogen from colonizing a substrate is by having a healthy ecosystem of competitors already in place. That has pretty interesting implications for the "rogue AI eats internet" scenario.

There needs to be something already there to stop it.

Re: GPT-5.5

#808

Post by fragmede »

mr_00ff00 wrote: post #397
4m1rk wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It probably would, to save energy

Saving energy is something we are biologically trained to prefer. Computers won’t necessarily have the same drivers. If evolution wanted us to always prefer to spend energy, we would prefer it. Same way you wouldn’t expect us to get to AGI, and have AGI desperately want to drink water or fly south for the winter.

Who's energy? Turning off the lights when you leave the room isn't innate.

Re: GPT-5.5

#809

Post by andai »

kang wrote: post #392
butlike wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This brings up an interesting philosophical point: say we get to AGI... who's to say it won't just be a super smart underachiever-type? "Hey AGI, how's that cure for cancer coming?" "Oh it's done just gotta...formalize it you know. Big rollout and all that..." I would find it divinely funny if we "got there" with AGI and it was just a complete slacker. Hard to justify leaving it on, but too important to turn it off.

it will be whatever data it is trained on(isn't very philosophical). language model generates language based on trained language set. if the internet keeps reciting ai doom stories and that is the data fed to it, then that is how it will behave. if humanity creates more ai utopia stories, or that is what makes it to the training set, that is how it will behave. this one seems to be trained on troll stories - real-lif…

There's a weirder implication I keep arriving at.

The pre-training data doesn't go away. RLHF adds a censorship layer on top, but the nasty stuff is all still there, under the surface. (Claude has been trained on a significant amount of content from 4chan, for example.)

In psychology this maps to the persona and the shadow. The friendly mask you show to the world, and... the other stuff.

Post reply on HN