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

GPT-5

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

951–960 of 1001 posts

Re: GPT-5

#951

Post by FuriouslyAdrift »

somenameforme wrote: post #923
highfrequency wrote: post #331

It is frequently suggested that once one of the AI companies reaches an AGI threshold, they will take off ahead of the rest. It's interesting to note that at least so far, the trend has been the opposite: as time goes on and the models get better, the performance of the different company's gets clustered closer together. Right now GPT-5, Claude Opus, Grok 4, Gemini 2.5 Pro all seem quite good across the board (ie the…

If AGI is ever achieved, it would open the door to recursive self improvement that would presumably rapidly exceed human capability across any and all fields, including AI development. So the AI would be improving itself while simultaneously also making revolutionary breakthroughs in essentially all fields. And, for at least a while, it would also presumably be doing so at an exponentially increasing rate. But I thin…

Math... lots and lots of math solutions. Like if it could figure out the numerical sign problem, it could quite possibly be able to simulate all of physics.

Re: GPT-5

#952

Post by twh270 »

asboans wrote: post #845
surround wrote: post #297

GPT-5 knowledge cutoff: Sep 30, 2024 (10 months before release). Compare that to Gemini 2.5 Pro knowledge cutoff: Jan 2025 (3 months before release) Claude Opus 4.1: knowledge cutoff: Mar 2025 (4 months before release) https://platform.openai.com/docs/models/compare https://deepmind.google/models/gemini/pro/ https://docs.anthropic.com/en/docs/about-claude/models/overv...

It would be fun to train an LLM with a knowledge cutoff of 1900 or something

Someone tried this, I saw it one of the Reddit AI subs. They were training a local model on whatever they could find that was written before $cutoffDate.

Found the GitHub: https://github.com/haykgrigo3/TimeCapsuleLLM

Re: GPT-5

#953

Post by jdlyga »

GPT-5 seems to be a rollup of their previous models. It reminds me of Cursor's "auto" mode, which users aren't particularly happy with either.

Re: GPT-5

#954

Post by 00deadbeef »

Is anyone else having problems with factual correctness? I had a number of 4o and o3 conversations going and those models were factually correct about a number of different subjects.

Asking GPT-5 about the same things results in wrong answers even though its training data is newer. And it won't look things up to correct itself unless I manually switch to the thinking variant.

This is worse. I cancelled my subscription.

Re: GPT-5

#955

Post by danielscrubs »

00deadbeef wrote: post #954

Is anyone else having problems with factual correctness? I had a number of 4o and o3 conversations going and those models were factually correct about a number of different subjects. Asking GPT-5 about the same things results in wrong answers even though its training data is newer. And it won't look things up to correct itself unless I manually switch to the thinking variant. This is worse. I cancelled my subscriptio…

Synthetic data. Get used to it, it’s in vogue.

Re: GPT-5

#956

Post by ripped_britches »

Telemakhos wrote: post #734

I am thoroughly unimpressed by GPT-5. It still can't compose iambic trimeters in ancient Greek with a proper penthemimeral cæsura, and it insists on providing totally incorrect scansion of the flawed lines it does compose. I corrected its metrical sins twice, which sent it into "thinking" mode until it finally returned a "Reasoning failed" error. There is no intelligence here: it's still just giving plausible output.…

> I am thoroughly unimpressed by GPT-5. It still can't compose iambic trimeters in ancient Greek with a proper penthemimeral cæsura, and it insists on providing totally incorrect scansion of the flawed lines it does compose

This would be a hilarious take to read in 2020

Re: GPT-5

#957

Post by aldousd666 »

highfrequency wrote: post #331

It is frequently suggested that once one of the AI companies reaches an AGI threshold, they will take off ahead of the rest. It's interesting to note that at least so far, the trend has been the opposite: as time goes on and the models get better, the performance of the different company's gets clustered closer together. Right now GPT-5, Claude Opus, Grok 4, Gemini 2.5 Pro all seem quite good across the board (ie the…

so everyone is saying 'This can't be AGI because it isn't recursively self improving itself' or 'we haven't yet solved all the worlds chemistry and science yet'.. but they're missing the point. Those problems aren't just waiting for humans to have more brain power. We actually have to do the experiments using real physical resources that aren't available to any models. So, while I don't believe we have necessarily reached AGI yet, the 'lack of taking over' or 'solving everything' is not evidence for it.

Re: GPT-5

#958

Post by aldousd666 »

somenameforme wrote: post #923
highfrequency wrote: post #331

It is frequently suggested that once one of the AI companies reaches an AGI threshold, they will take off ahead of the rest. It's interesting to note that at least so far, the trend has been the opposite: as time goes on and the models get better, the performance of the different company's gets clustered closer together. Right now GPT-5, Claude Opus, Grok 4, Gemini 2.5 Pro all seem quite good across the board (ie the…

If AGI is ever achieved, it would open the door to recursive self improvement that would presumably rapidly exceed human capability across any and all fields, including AI development. So the AI would be improving itself while simultaneously also making revolutionary breakthroughs in essentially all fields. And, for at least a while, it would also presumably be doing so at an exponentially increasing rate. But I thin…

Those problems aren't just waiting on smarts/intelligence. Those would require experimentation in the real world. You can't solve chemistry by just thinking about it really hard. You still have to do experiments. A super intelligent machine may be better at coming up with experiments to do than we are, but without the right stuff to do them, it can't 'solve' anything of the like.

Re: GPT-5

#959

Post by p0nce »

somenameforme wrote: post #923
highfrequency wrote: post #331

It is frequently suggested that once one of the AI companies reaches an AGI threshold, they will take off ahead of the rest. It's interesting to note that at least so far, the trend has been the opposite: as time goes on and the models get better, the performance of the different company's gets clustered closer together. Right now GPT-5, Claude Opus, Grok 4, Gemini 2.5 Pro all seem quite good across the board (ie the…

If AGI is ever achieved, it would open the door to recursive self improvement that would presumably rapidly exceed human capability across any and all fields, including AI development. So the AI would be improving itself while simultaneously also making revolutionary breakthroughs in essentially all fields. And, for at least a while, it would also presumably be doing so at an exponentially increasing rate. But I thin…

Well it could also self-improve increasingly slowly.

Re: GPT-5

#960

Post by throwawayb2025 »

somenameforme wrote: post #923
highfrequency wrote: post #331

It is frequently suggested that once one of the AI companies reaches an AGI threshold, they will take off ahead of the rest. It's interesting to note that at least so far, the trend has been the opposite: as time goes on and the models get better, the performance of the different company's gets clustered closer together. Right now GPT-5, Claude Opus, Grok 4, Gemini 2.5 Pro all seem quite good across the board (ie the…

If AGI is ever achieved, it would open the door to recursive self improvement that would presumably rapidly exceed human capability across any and all fields, including AI development. So the AI would be improving itself while simultaneously also making revolutionary breakthroughs in essentially all fields. And, for at least a while, it would also presumably be doing so at an exponentially increasing rate. But I thin…

Recursive improvement without any physical change maybe limited. If any physical change like more gpu or different network configuration is required to experiment and again change to learn from it that might not be easy. Convincing human to do on AGI behalf may not be that simple. There might be multiple path to try and teams may not agree with each other. Specially if the cost of trial is high.
Post reply on HN