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

GPT-4.5

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

961–970 of 1001 posts

Re: GPT-4.5

#961

Post by wegfawefgawefg »

wegfawefgawefg wrote: post #816
dotancohen wrote: post #485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Claude just got a version bump from 3.5 to 3.7. Quite a few people have been asking when OpenAI will get a version bump as well, as GPT 4 has been out "what feels like forever" in the words of a specialist I speak with. Releasing GPT 4.5 might simply be a reaction to Claude 3.7.

since 4o openai has released: o1 preview. o1 mini. o1. sora. o3-mini <- very good at code

I do not know who downvoted this. I am providing a factual correction to the parent post.

OpenAI has had many releases since gpt4. Many of them have been substantial upgrades. I have considered gpt4 to be outdated for almost 5-6 months now, long before claudes patch.

Re: GPT-4.5

#962

Post by garspin »

pinkmuffinere wrote: post #615
mechagodzilla wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's the right interpretation, but that's pretty weak for a company that's nominally worth $150B but is currently bleeding money at a crazy clip. "We spent years and billions of dollars to come up with something that's 1) very expensive, and 2) possibly better under some circumstances than some of the alternatives." There are basically free, equally good competitors to all of their products, and pretty much…

I don’t mean to disagree too strongly, but just to illustrate another perspective: I don’t feel this is a weak result. Consider if you built a new version that you _thought_ would perform much better, and then you found that it offered marginal-but-not-amazing improvement over the previous version. It’s likely that you will keep iterating. But in the meantime what do you do with your marginal performance gain? Do you…

> and then you found that it offered marginal-but-not-amazing improvement over the previous version.

Then call it GPT 4.1 and allow version space for the next iteration.

I think the label V4.5 is giving the impression of more than marginal improvements.

Re: GPT-4.5

#963

Post by worik »

eddiewithzato wrote: post #862
lovasoa wrote: post #839

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the second handpicked example they give, GPT-4.5 says that "The Trojan Women Setting Fire to Their Fleet" by the French painter Claude Lorrain is renowned for its luminous depiction of fire. That is a hallucination. There is no fire at all in the painting, only some smoke. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trojan_Women_Set_Fire_to_t...

AI crash is gonna lead to decade long winter

> AI crash is gonna lead to decade long winter

Possibly.

I am reminded of the dotcom boom and bust back in the 1990s

By 2009 things had recovered (for some definition) and we could tell what did and did not work

This time, though, for those of us not in the USA the rebound will be lead by Chinese technology

In the USA no-one can say.

Re: GPT-4.5

#964

Post by phonon »

tkgally wrote: post #276
tmaly wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would like to see a humor test. So far, I have not seen any model response that has made me laugh.

How does the following stand-up routine by Claude 3.7 Sonnet work for you? https://gally.net/temp/20250225claudestandup2.html

"Tip your server" was a pretty great pun!

Re: GPT-4.5

#965

Post by zamadatix »

whimsicalism wrote: post #891
highfrequency wrote: post #881

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it fair to still call LLMs stochastic parrots now that they are enriched with reasoning? Seems to me that the simple procedure of large-scale sampling + filtering makes it immediately plausible to get something better than the training distribution out of the LLM. In that sense the parrot metaphor seems suddenly wrong. I don’t feel like this binary shift is adequately accounted for among the LLM cynics.

it was never fair to call them stochastic parrots and anybody who is paying any attention knows that sequence models can generalize at least partially OOD

OOD = Out-of-Distribution = when a model encounters inputs which differ from data it was trained on.

For anyone else not familiar with the acronym of the day :).

Re: GPT-4.5

#966

Post by janoc »

cynicalpeace wrote: post #951
janoc wrote: post #947

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And pretty much most of them just resell OpenAI/Anthropic/Google/Meta's APIs and model access, with something repackaged on top. And none is remotely profitable.

Greater than $50k profit per month per employee sounds very profitable to me.

And who actually makes that much?

Or are you counting also VC money into that "profit"?

Re: GPT-4.5

#967

Post by sebastiennight »

capnrefsmmat wrote: post #819
famouswaffles wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole robotic, monotone, helpful assistant thing was something these companies had to actively hammer in during the post-training stage. It's not really how LLMs will sound by default after pre-training. I guess they're caring less and less about that effort especially since it hurts the model in some ways like creative writing.

Maybe, but I'm not sure how much the style is deliberate vs. a consequence of the post-training tasks like summarization and problem solving. Without seeing the post-training tasks and rating systems it's hard to judge if it's a deliberate style or an emergent consequence of other things. But it's definitely the case that base models sound more human than instruction-tuned variants. And the shift isn't just vocabular…

How is "development" an adverb or adjective turned into a noun??

It comes from a French word (développement) and that in turns was just a natural derivation of the verb "développer"... no adverbs or adjectives (English or otherwise) seem to come into play here

Re: GPT-4.5

#968

Post by cynicalpeace »

janoc wrote: post #966
cynicalpeace wrote: post #951

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Greater than $50k profit per month per employee sounds very profitable to me.

And who actually makes that much? Or are you counting also VC money into that "profit"?

levelsio, eric smith, david park, jacob of rezi, etc

Re: GPT-4.5

#969

Post by sebastiennight »

cynicalpeace wrote: post #900
neuroticnews25 wrote: post #717

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How could a machine provide emotional support? When I ask questions like this to LLMs, it's always to brainstorm solutions. I get annoyed when I receive fake-attention follow-up questions instead. I guess there's a trade-off between being human and being useful. But this isn't unique to LLMs, it's similar to how one wouldn't expect a deep personal connection with a customer service professional.

There are some businesses trying to do emotional support with AI, like AI GF's, etc Some will make some profit as a niche thing (millions of users on a global scale, and if unit economics work, can make millions of $) But it seems it will never be something really mainstream because most normal people don't care what a bot says or does. The example I always think of is chess bots have been better at chess than humans…

I agree with you on the timescale of a single generation.

I disagree with you on the timescale of n ≥ 2 generations: kids/teens/adults will pick up new habits and ways of seeing the world.

Just like someone like me can appear like a grizzled old fool for not seeing the appeal of TikTok, it's 100% possible to be blinded to the very real appeal of a 24/7 sycophantic "friend".

And I'll give you a concrete example: I was at a business conference 3 weeks ago where I talked to the group about the trap people could easily fall into, of ditching personal/professional support for AI support (the trap is: it's easy for the "digital friend" to get you roped in by just being sycophantic enough - "it's never your fault").

And then in the very same meeting, one of the keynote speeches was this influential female CEO explaining how she had "taught her custom GPT to become her spiritual leader" and how this GPT spiritual teacher was acting as her guide, therapist and coach (complete with a name, backstory and profile picture). I was rolling my eyes so hard they might have fallen out of my head.

This is where we're going towards, and people like this misguided CEO will lead their audiences and followers straight there (especially when that is combined with financial incentives or social rewards).

Re: GPT-4.5

#970

Post by cynicalpeace »

sebastiennight wrote: post #969
cynicalpeace wrote: post #900

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are some businesses trying to do emotional support with AI, like AI GF's, etc Some will make some profit as a niche thing (millions of users on a global scale, and if unit economics work, can make millions of $) But it seems it will never be something really mainstream because most normal people don't care what a bot says or does. The example I always think of is chess bots have been better at chess than humans…

I agree with you on the timescale of a single generation. I disagree with you on the timescale of n ≥ 2 generations: kids/teens/adults will pick up new habits and ways of seeing the world. Just like someone like me can appear like a grizzled old fool for not seeing the appeal of TikTok, it's 100% possible to be blinded to the very real appeal of a 24/7 sycophantic "friend". And I'll give you a concrete example: I was…

People like that will be well served by the niche businesses I mentioned, and those businesses will make a killing.

but the average person won't be using it

Post reply on HN