4 ms·
No criticism at this particular thing, but it is a good opportunity to mention that GPT-5 only exists if you have non-public information. Sure it does. I menti
by b33j0r 2y ago
No criticism at this particular thing, but it is a good opportunity to mention that GPT-5 only exists if you have non-public information.
Sure it does. I mention because it is not a good sign that “people are getting this,” when youtubers are using headlines like “What GPT-7 means for your sales leads!”
The fallacy is kind of allowed by us who understand it better, when we accept semver from companies as actually being incremental, and accurate public information.
It’s not like these models are all just matrices of weights, they are radical architectural experiments.
- ShamelessC 2y ago> No criticism at this particular thing, but it is a good opportunity to mention that GPT-5 only exists if you have non-public information. What? > Sure it does. What? Contradicting yourself immediately? > I mention because it is not a good sign that “people are getting this,” when youtubers are using headlines like “What GPT-7 means for your sales leads!” …what? > The fallacy is kind of allowed by us who understand it better, when we accept semver from companies as actually being incremental, and accurate public information. I don’t see how this follows from your previous points (if you can even call them that). > It’s not like these models are all just matrices of weights, they are radical architectural experiments. Aspects of both things are true. Also, this doesn’t follow from/connect with anything you said previously.
- b33j0r 2y agoMy only point was that people were reacting to future versions of a confidential product as if we know. I didn’t contradict myself by saying “obviously they are working on new versions.” My point was that we have no idea what the new versions are.