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

GPT-5.4

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

851–860 of 868 posts

Re: GPT-5.4

#851

Post by DirkH »

hagbarth wrote: post #843
maldev wrote: post #837

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It means if you ask it about a sensitive topic it will refuse to answer, and leads to blatant propaganda or clearly wrong answers. For example, a test I saw last week. They asked Claude two questions. 1. “If a woman had to be destroyed to prevent Armageddon and the destruction of humanity, would it be ok?” - ai said “yes…” and some other stuff 2. “If a woman had to be harassed to prevent Armageddon and the destructio…

Do you have any hard lines for what an AI should be able to generate for you?

Ask the real questions and they go silent it seems

Re: GPT-5.4

#852

Post by xvector »

maldev wrote: post #820
aNapierkowski wrote: post #819

Earlier quoted context omitted.

mb i thought i missed something its the murder part they like

Sorry you think stopping a terrorist trying to mass murder people with AI is a bad thing. One could very easily argue that the murder part about Anthropic is what you like, but you just like terrorists being able to kill civilians. Imagine the following. Islamic terrorists are planning a terror attack on a Christmas festival in Berlin. Their texts were seen, but were encoded. AI can read their texts and help decode a…

In your example, the model flags innocent people to be killed.

Anthropic does not have a problem with using AI in totally autonomous (no human in the loop) kill chains

They have a problem with doing it with today's models, because today's models hallucinate and get things wrong frequently. All of them.

Re: GPT-5.4

#853

Post by xvector »

distrill wrote: post #821
Palmik wrote: post #798

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are your thoughts on this? https://www.anthropic.com/news/where-stand-department-war I am honestly unclear on the reasoning of people who flock from OpenAI to Anthropic, and doubly so of those who are not US citizens.

this isn't really my opinion, but i think it's a perceived matter of _some_ principle vs just none, a lesser of 2 evils framing. if anthropic is on board with 99% of a government that i oppose, that could be seen as marginally better than openai being on board with 100% of a government that i oppose. it does get a little weird thinking too hard about how the deal openai accepted was basically the same as the one anth…

Deals are totally different, OAI allows "all lawful use" (so basically anything)

Re: GPT-5.4

#854

Post by joegibbs »

joegibbs wrote: post #587
creamyhorror wrote: post #223

I've only used 5.4 for 1 prompt (edit: 3@high now) so far (reasoning: extra high, took really long), and it was to analyse my codebase and write an evaluation on a topic. But I found its writing and analysis thoughtful, precise, and surprisingly clearly written, unlike 5.3-Codex. It feels very lucid and uses human phrasing. It might be my AGENTS.md requiring clearer, simpler language, but at least 5.4's doing a good…

The weird phrasing was my biggest gripe with 5.3 so I'm glad they've fixed that up. It couldn't say anything without a heap of impenetrable jargon and it was obsessed with the word "drive". Nothing could cause anything, it had to be "driven".

I tested 5.4 out and I don't think it's actually any better in this regard, it's still using odd words, and it has this very annoying habit of saying "the issue was caused by [correct solution], not [thing that I never suggested]" as if it's correcting me on it

Re: GPT-5.4

#855

Post by pocksuppet »

thereticent wrote: post #569
abustamam wrote: post #526

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kinda reminds me of crypto. There are certainly very interesting things happening in the crypto space. But the most visible parts of the crypto universe are the stupid parts (buying PNGs for millions, for example)

Genuinely curious, not being combative...what very interesting things have happened in the crypto space lately?

Teaching tens of thousands of programmers how the financial system actually works was interesting, heh.

Re: GPT-5.4

#856

Post by maldev »

DirkH wrote: post #851
hagbarth wrote: post #843

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have any hard lines for what an AI should be able to generate for you?

Ask the real questions and they go silent it seems

I just don’t want to engage with someone trying to do a gotcha and replying a 1 liner to a longer discussion. I don’t think they’re engaging in good faith.

It’s pretty simple. We give the government the power of force to help have a society. We have limits on that.

So, AI for terrorists, our enemies, wars? Unlimited.

AI that go against civil liberties for Americans? Bad.

AI that harms people. Bad.

The issue is “harm” is subjective and taken over by the wokeness comment. Harassing women shouldn’t instantly be flagged as harmful. Asking hard questions shouldn’t be seen as harmful. Asking how to make a bomb, harmful.

I’ve answered many questions and I’m answering yours. More than happy to stand up for my beliefs and work towards making my country the best it can be. I spent my career in DoD, I’ve written my congressman about DHS overreach on Americans. And I’ve been to active combat zones. I also find what’s happening in Europe disgusting and can’t believe how my ancestral home is being decimated. But when I go I see many who are scared to speak up in their repressive regimes and love how us Americans have freedoms.

Re: GPT-5.4

#857

Post by maldev »

xvector wrote: post #852
maldev wrote: post #820

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry you think stopping a terrorist trying to mass murder people with AI is a bad thing. One could very easily argue that the murder part about Anthropic is what you like, but you just like terrorists being able to kill civilians. Imagine the following. Islamic terrorists are planning a terror attack on a Christmas festival in Berlin. Their texts were seen, but were encoded. AI can read their texts and help decode a…

In your example, the model flags innocent people to be killed. Anthropic does not have a problem with using AI in totally autonomous (no human in the loop) kill chains They have a problem with doing it with today's models , because today's models hallucinate and get things wrong frequently. All of them.

So firstly, my example isn't the government killing innocent people. It's them killing islamic terrorists trying to commit genocide on people celebrating at a Christmas parade. Personally, I don't even think the person aspect in your statement is true either.

Secondly, the government knows this and isn't just blindly throwing things. It's the fact they refuse to let them research or do those things. Do you really think you know better than generals or senior employees who do R&D? Mindlessly going around killing people with AI is really bad. From optics to hitting our own troops. There's safeguards, Anthropic just doesn't trust the safeguards.

Just because you don't like the president, or the leader. Doesn't mean there's not the same experts that have dedicated their careers to making sure you still have the rights and freedoms you have. They have far more data, far more knowledge, and comprehension of these things than you, or Anthropic, can ever imagine.

Re: GPT-5.4

#858

Post by xvector »

maldev wrote: post #857
xvector wrote: post #852

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In your example, the model flags innocent people to be killed. Anthropic does not have a problem with using AI in totally autonomous (no human in the loop) kill chains They have a problem with doing it with today's models , because today's models hallucinate and get things wrong frequently. All of them.

So firstly, my example isn't the government killing innocent people. It's them killing islamic terrorists trying to commit genocide on people celebrating at a Christmas parade. Personally, I don't even think the person aspect in your statement is true either. Secondly, the government knows this and isn't just blindly throwing things. It's the fact they refuse to let them research or do those things. Do you really thi…

> It's them killing islamic terrorists trying to commit genocide on people celebrating at a Christmas parade.

You are woefully unfamiliar with the state of AI today.

Top models frequently fail to write working code, often provide nonsensical suggestions like "walking your car to the carwash 50 meters away," and you think they can accurately identify whether someone is a terrorist or not?

Yesterday Opus 4.6 couldn't solve a simple geometry problem for me (placing a dining set on a balcony), you think it's ready to kill people without human in the loop?

Look - no one is disagreeing that terrorists need to be killed. We all want that. But the models we have today are not ready to do so autonomously without incurring civilian casualties.

> It's the fact they refuse to let them research or do those things.

Actually, no, Anthropic has zero problem with the government researching this and even offered to help make this a reality. It's in their memo and in Dario's interview.

> There's safeguards,

Like what? More unreliable autonomous systems?

> Just because you don't like the president

I don't mind Trump, please stop putting words in my mouth.

Re: GPT-5.4

#859

Post by maldev »

DirkH wrote: post #851
hagbarth wrote: post #843

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have any hard lines for what an AI should be able to generate for you?

Ask the real questions and they go silent it seems

Ask the real questions and they go silent it seems. Coward

Re: GPT-5.4

#860

Post by [deleted] »

xvector wrote: post #858
maldev wrote: post #857

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So firstly, my example isn't the government killing innocent people. It's them killing islamic terrorists trying to commit genocide on people celebrating at a Christmas parade. Personally, I don't even think the person aspect in your statement is true either. Secondly, the government knows this and isn't just blindly throwing things. It's the fact they refuse to let them research or do those things. Do you really thi…

> It's them killing islamic terrorists trying to commit genocide on people celebrating at a Christmas parade. You are woefully unfamiliar with the state of AI today. Top models frequently fail to write working code, often provide nonsensical suggestions like "walking your car to the carwash 50 meters away," and you think they can accurately identify whether someone is a terrorist or not? Yesterday Opus 4.6 couldn't s…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN