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

841–850 of 1001 posts

Re: GPT-5.5

#841

Post by TeMPOraL »

andai wrote: post #806
altmanaltman wrote: post #789

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

This only works if AIs can't read each other well enough to stop themselves from ever fighting.

So, back way before ChatGPT era, the folks over at AI safety/X-risk think sphere worked out a pretty compelling argument that two AGIs never need to fight, because they are transparent to each other (can read each other's goal functions off the source code), so they can perfectly predict each other's behavior in what-if scenarios, which means they can't lie to each other. This means each can independently arrive at the same mathematically optimal solution to a conflict, which AFAIR most likely involves just merging into a single AI with a blended goal set, representing each of the competing AIs original values in proportion to their relative strength. Both AIs, the argument goes, can work this out with math, so they'll arrive straight at the peace treaty without exchanging a single shot. In such case, your plan just doesn't work.

But that goes out of the windows if the AIs are both opaque bags of floats, uncomprehensible to themselves or each other. That means they'll never be able to make hard assertions about their values and behaviors, so they can't trust each other, so they'll have to fight it out. In such scenario, your idea might just work.

Who knew that brute-forcing our way into AGI instead of taking more engineered approach is what offers us out one chance at saving ourselves by stalemating God before it's born.

(I also never realized that interpretability might reduce safety.)

Re: GPT-5.5

#842

Post by William_BB »

_alternator_ wrote: post #330

> One engineer at NVIDIA who had early access to the model went as far as to say: "Losing access to GPT‑5.5 feels like I've had a limb amputated.” This quote is more sinister than I think was intended; it likely applies to all frontier coding models. As they get better, we quickly come to rely on them for coding. It's like playing a game on God Mode. Engineers become dependent; it's truly addictive. This matches my o…

> I'll make more progress than mentally wearing myself out reading a bunch of LLM generated code trying to figure out how to solve the problem manually.

I feel sorry for whoever has to work on that codebase. This is the literal definition of tech debt.

Re: GPT-5.5

#843

Post by William_BB »

__alexs wrote: post #469
_alternator_ wrote: post #330

> One engineer at NVIDIA who had early access to the model went as far as to say: "Losing access to GPT‑5.5 feels like I've had a limb amputated.” This quote is more sinister than I think was intended; it likely applies to all frontier coding models. As they get better, we quickly come to rely on them for coding. It's like playing a game on God Mode. Engineers become dependent; it's truly addictive. This matches my o…

I feel like most engineers I talk to still haven't realised what this is going to mean for the industry. The power loom for coding is here. Our skills still matter, but differently.

> I'll make more progress than mentally wearing myself out reading a bunch of LLM generated code trying to figure out how to solve the problem manually.

Most engineers realize that there's currently more tech debt being created than ever before. And it will only get worse.

Re: GPT-5.5

#844

Post by niklasd »

Just burned through my 5 hour window in Codex (Business plan) in 10 minutes with GPT-5.5. Was excited to use it, but I guess I have to wait 5 hours now (it's not yet available in the API, so I can't switch there).

Re: GPT-5.5

#845

Post by rimliu »

billywhizz wrote: post #621
jetrink wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like if I attempted this, the bike frame would look fine and everything else would be completely unrecognizable. After all, a basic bike frame is just straight lines arranged in a fairly simple shape. It's really surprising that models find it so difficult, but they can make a pelican with panache.

why do you find it surprising? these models have no actual understanding of anything, never mind the physical properties and capabilities of a bicycle.

Sad to see this downvoted. So many people think that LLM have understanding?

Re: GPT-5.5

#846

Post by semi-extrinsic »

andai wrote: post #806
altmanaltman wrote: post #789

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

The tech bro CEOs are used to bossing around people much smarter than themselves by virtue of adopting a posture that displays their confidence in their own reproductive organs. They are planning that the AGIs will be the same thing writ large, and have in fact not contemplated other possibilities.

Re: GPT-5.5

#847

Post by fc417fc802 »

simonw wrote: post #759
i_love_retros wrote: post #739

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do realise they are doing it for self promotion right?

I mean, yeah. "Person who spends time publishing content online is doing it for self promotion " doesn't seem particularly notable to me. 24 years of self promotion and counting!

I am always outraged when youtube creators ask me to like and subscribe. /s

Re: GPT-5.5

#848

Post by Mario9382 »

unsupp0rted wrote: post #497
jfkimmes wrote: post #122

Everyone talked about the marketing stunt that was Anthropic's gated Mythos model with an 83% result on CyberGym. OpenAI just dropped GPT 5.5, which scores 82% and is open for anybody to use. I recommend anybody in offensive/defensive cybersecurity to experiment with this. This is the real data point we needed - without the hype! Never thought I'd say this but OpenAI is the 'open' option again.

Doesn't OpenAI get mad if you ask cybersecurity questions and force you to upload a government ID, otherwise they'll silently route you to a less capable model? > Developers and security professionals doing cybersecurity-related work or similar activity that could be mistaken by automated detection systems may have requests rerouted to GPT-5.2 as a fallback. https://developers.openai.com/codex/concepts/cyber-safety h…

I don't like this trend, but I get why they require it. The alternative seems to just ban cybersecurity-related questions.

Re: GPT-5.5

#849

Post by fc417fc802 »

greenavocado wrote: post #730
tpurves wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real 'hype' was that the oh-snap realization that Open AI would absolutely release a competitive model to Mythos within weeks of Anthropic announcing there's, and that Sam would not gate access to it. So the panic was that the cyber world had only a projected 2 weeks to harden all these new zero days before Sam would inevitably create open season for blackhats to discover and exploit a deluge of zero-days.

The GPT-5.5 API endpoint started to block me after I escalated with ever more aggressive use of rizin, radare2, and ghidra to confirm correct memory management and cleanup in error code branches when working with a buggy proprietary 3rd party SDK. After I explained myself more clearly it let me carry on. Knock on wood. So there is a safety model watching your behavior for these kinds of things.

So you're saying that blackhats will be required to do a small bit of roleplay if they want the model to assist them? I'm not against public access BTW just pointing out how absurd that PR oriented "safety" feature is. "We did something don't blame us" sort of measure.

It isn't even my intent to naysay their approach. They probably have to do something along those lines to avoid being convicted in the court of public opinion. I just think it's an absurd reality.

Re: GPT-5.5

#850

Post by jwr »

concinds wrote: post #380
jfkimmes wrote: post #122

Everyone talked about the marketing stunt that was Anthropic's gated Mythos model with an 83% result on CyberGym. OpenAI just dropped GPT 5.5, which scores 82% and is open for anybody to use. I recommend anybody in offensive/defensive cybersecurity to experiment with this. This is the real data point we needed - without the hype! Never thought I'd say this but OpenAI is the 'open' option again.

> Never thought I'd say this but OpenAI is the 'open' option again. Compared to Anthropic, they always have been. Anthropic has never released any open models. Never released Claude Code's source, willingly (unlike Codex). Never released their tokenizer.

What's "open" about any of these companies?

I'm tired of words being misused. We have hoverboards that do not hover, self-driving cars that do not, actually, self-drive, starships that will never fly to the stars, and "open"… I can't even describe what it's used for, except everybody wants to call themselves "open".

Post reply on HN