91–100 of 131 posts
They finally did release 2.0 under the MIT license. That was the last version (a 1.5-billion-parameter model) they would release open source. GPT3 for comparison has 175 billion parameters.
No. That’s not true. https://huggingface.co/openai/gpt-oss-120b Was released after.
Someone needs to make a compilation of all these classic OpenAI moments. Including hits like GPT-2 too dangerous, the 64x64 image model DALL-E too scary, "push the veil of ignorance back", AGI achieved internally, Q*/strawberry is able to solve math and is making OpenAI researchers panic, etc. etc. I use Codex btw, and I really love it. But some of these companies have been so overhyping the capabilities of these mod…
> a very straightforward and basic UI bug Show us the code, or an obfuscated snippet. A common challenge with coding-agent related posts is that the described experiences have no associated context, and readers have no way of knowing whether it's the model, the task, the company or even the developer. Nobody learns anything without context, including the poster.
This is a pretty simple thing, but you can imagine how CSS issues get progressively more difficult for AIs to solve. A CSS bug can be made to require reading arbitrarily much code if you solve by only reading code, but by looking at relatively few elements, if you look at the page with your eyes.
This can be somewhat solved by hooking up a harness to screenshot the page and feed it into the AI, but it isn't perfect even then.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I understand how laughable that sounds when I say it out loud. But the reality is, when I'm in a state of 'Tell LLM what to do, verify, repeat', it's really hard to sometimes break out of that loop and do manual fixes. Maybe the brain has some advanced optimization where once you're in a loop, roughly staying inside that loop has a lower impedance than starting one. Maybe that's why the flow state feels so magical, i…
> Maybe the brain …is already damaged by reliance on AI.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> after wasting a day on this, I am now just going to go through the (single file) of code and just fix it myself. Seriously, you wasted a whole day just so you wouldn't have to look at a single file of code? > Update: some 20 minutes later, I have fixed the bug. Despite not knowing this particular programming language or framework. Be really careful there, you might have accidentally learned something.
It is entirely plausible they were just experimenting with AI tooling to better understand how to use it and what it is capable of. Their saying, 'Despite not knowing this particular programming language or framework.' indicates to me this is probably the case.
There was even another UI component (in the same file) which was almost the same but slightly different and that one was correct. That's what I copy pasted and tweaked when I fixed the problem. But for some reason the models were utterly incapable of making that connection.
With Codex and Claude Code I thought maybe because these agentic coding tools are trained to be conservative with tokens and aggressively use grep that they weren't looking at the full file in one go.
But with Gemini I used the web version and literally pasted that entire file + screenshots detailing what was wrong (including the other component which was rendering correctly) and it still couldn't solve it. It was bewildering.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I am now just going to go through the (single file) of code and just fix it myself. That's front page news, in this era.
I understand how laughable that sounds when I say it out loud. But the reality is, when I'm in a state of 'Tell LLM what to do, verify, repeat', it's really hard to sometimes break out of that loop and do manual fixes. Maybe the brain has some advanced optimization where once you're in a loop, roughly staying inside that loop has a lower impedance than starting one. Maybe that's why the flow state feels so magical, i…
I think they are right unintentionally. The growing amount of low-quality content everywhere could become a real problem.
They were more than right. They were correct in an intentional, precise manner. This is what OpenAI actually stated[0]: > Synthetic imagery, audio, and video, imply that technologies are reducing the cost of generating fake content and waging disinformation campaigns. > ‘The public at large will need to become more sceptical of text they find online, just as the ”deep fakes” phenomenon calls for more scepticism about…
This was around the time I trained Transformer-XL (outside of OpenAI) with Ben Mann ( https://yaroslavvb.medium.com/scaling-transformer-xl-to-128-... ) . Originally we wanted to release train and release the weights as a kind of GPT-2.5, but our OpenAI friends pushed us to keep weights closed.
"
OpenAI reached out to me almost immediately to talk and they were nothing but respectful and understanding... After making it publicly known what I had done, I was quickly approached by a range of smart people with good arguments. Many of them helped me update my beliefs in light of new evidence...
The day after my announcement, I got to talk to Jack Clark, Alec Radford and Jeff Wu from OpenAI. We had a nice hour long discussion, where I explained where I was coming from, and they helped me to refine my beliefs. They didn’t come in accusing me in any way, they were very clear in saying they wanted to help me gain more important insight into the wider situation. For this open and respectful attitude I will always be grateful. Large entities like OpenAI often seem like behemoths to outsiders, but it was during this chat that it really hit me that they were people just like me, and curious hackers to boot as well.
I quickly began to understand nuances of the situation I wasn’t aware of. OpenAI had a lot more internal discussion than their blog post made it seem. And I found this reassuring. Jack in particular also gave me a lot of valuable information about the possible dangers of the model, and a bit of insight into the workings of governments and intelligence agencies.
After our discussion, I had a lot to think about. But I still wasn’t really convinced to not release. Even some people inside OpenAI were still discussing the not-release policy. So while I definitely had things to consider, I was still mostly set on releasing...
We shouldn’t be angry with OpenAI for what they did. We should applaud them for making a point before it becomes a true problem. Prophylaxis is much better than treatment. I still disagree with some of the things OpenAI did and how they communicated them, but I now understand that sending a message that it is ok, even celebrated, for a lone individual to unilaterally go against reasonable safety concerns of other researchers is not a good message to send. I want to support OpenAI’s message. So, while it might be a small, mostly symbolic gesture, I will not be releasing my model. Some day, someone like me may be in a situation just like mine, but it won’t be GPT2. It might be something much, much more dangerous. And that is the person I am trying to talk to here.
"
https://medium.com/@NPCollapse/the-hacker-learns-to-trust-62...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is entirely plausible they were just experimenting with AI tooling to better understand how to use it and what it is capable of. Their saying, 'Despite not knowing this particular programming language or framework.' indicates to me this is probably the case.
Nope. I've been working on this project for a couple of days now and things were mostly going well. A significant portion of the mvp backend and frontend was built and working. Then this one seemingly simple bug appeared and just totally stumped both Codex and Claude Code. There was even another UI component (in the same file) which was almost the same but slightly different and that one was correct. That's what I co…
Tried the same with codex, it did a little better but still 4x times around.
This is with playwright automation, screen shots, full access, etc..