12 ms·
Hot take: GPT 4.5 is a nothing burger
- _mitterpach 2y agoThe output, from what I've seen, was okay? I don't know if it is that much better, and I think LLMs gain a lot by there not being an actual, objective measure by which you can compare two different models. Sure, there are some coding competitions, there are some benchmarks, but can you really check if the recipe for banana bread output by Claude is better than the one output by ChatGPT? Is there any reasonable way to compare outputs of fuzzy algorithms anyways? It is still an algorithm under the hood, with defined inputs, calculations and outputs, right? (just with a little bit of randomness defined by a random seed)
- dylan604 2y ago> but can you really check if the recipe for banana bread output by Claude is better than the one output by ChatGPT? yes? I mean, if you were really doing this, you could make both and see how they turned out. Or, if you were familiar with doing this and were just looking for a quick refresher, you'd know if something was off or not. but just like everything else on the interweb, if you have no knowledge except for what ever your search result presented, you're screwed!
- esafak 2y agoYou ask people to rate them, possibly among multiple dimensions. People are much better at resolving comparisons than absolute assessments. https://lmarena.ai/ https://lmarena.ai/
- what 2y agoThat only works if the people doing the rating are experts on the topic of the answer.
- amelius 2y agoThere are benchmarks, but they can be gamed.
- sen 2y agoI have a dozen or so very random prompts I feed into every new model that are based on things I’m very knowledgeable and passionate about, and compare the outputs. A couple are directly coding related, a couple are “write a few paragraphs explaining <technical thing>”, and the rest are purely about non-computer hobbies, etc. I’ve found it way more useful for me personally than any of the “formal” tests, as I don’t really care how it scores on random tests but instead very much do care how well it does my day to day things. It’s like listening to someone in the media talk about a topic you’re passionate about, and you pick up on all the little bits and pieces that aren’t right. It’s a gut feel and very unscientific but it works.
- genewitch 2y ago> It’s like listening to someone in the media talk about a topic you’re passionate about, and you pick up on all the little bits and pieces that aren’t right. It’s a gut feel and very unscientific but it works. I coined Murrai Gell-Mann for this sort of test of ai. I hope it takes off!
- resters 2y agoIt took me a while to learn to maximize o1. But 4.5 should seemingly work like 4o. Based on that it does seem underwhelming. Looking forward to hearing about any cases where it truly shines compared to other models.
- _1 2y agoHot take? The release notes said to not get your hopes up.
- xnx 2y agoThis seems to be the conventional wisdom.
- yokoprime 2y agoIt does give an impression of diminishing returns on this family of models. The output presented in samples and quoted in benchmarks is very impressive, but compared with 4o it seems to be an incremental update with no new capabilites of note. This does, however, come at a massive increase in cost (both in terms of compute, but also monetary). Also, this update did not benefit from being launched in the wake of Claude 3.7 and DeepSeek, which both had more headlining improvements compared with what we got yesterday from OpenAI
- 2muchcoffeeman 2y agoWhy would you not expect diminishing returns? Surely that’s the default position of all AI non-experts?
- TwoPhonesOneKid 2y agoI thought we were supposed to see AI managing costs reductions by now. Instead I just see chatbots and frantic PMs looking to prove their utility.
- iLoveOncall 2y agoI don't know why people would downvote you. ChatGPT was released in 2022! It doesn't feel like that, but it's been out for a long time and we've only seen marginal improvements since, and the wider public has simply not seen ANY improvement. It's obvious that the technology has hit a brick wall and the farce which is to spend double the tokens to first come up with a plan and call that "reasoning" has not moved the needle either. I build systems with GenAI at work daily in a FAANG, I use LLMs in the real world, not in benchmarks. There hasn't been any improvement since ChatGPT first release and equivalent models. We haven't even bothered upgrading to newer models because our evals show they don't perform better at all.
- nyolfen 2y ago[flagged]
- 2y ago
- blackeyeblitzar 2y agoHot take: Gary Marcus isn’t an expert in AI and his opinion is irrelevant. He regularly posts things that reflect his very biased view on things, not reality. I really am not sure what some people see that makes him worth following.
- 4ndrewl 2y agotbf, most commentators are not experts in AI and hop from expertise in Bitcoin, NFT, Metaverse to whatever's next.
- meowface 2y agoOpposite of a hot take; this is the near-consensus position in the AI field.
- afastow 2y agoHe does understand AI, he just doesn't endlessly repeat the hype and unrealistic AGI optimism like many people who write about AI. He thinks and speaks for himself even when he knows it will be unpopular. That's rare and what makes him worth following and considering even if you don't agree with everything he says.
- dangus 2y agoYou don't have to understand AI to understand the tech industry's hype cycle. You don't need to understand AI to understand business viability, either. I think the most important sentence in the article is here: > Half a trillion dollars later, there is still no viable business model, profits are modest at best for everyone except Nvidia and some consulting forms, there’s still basically no moat The tech industry has repeatedly promised bullshit far beyond what it can deliver. From blockchain to big data, the tech industry continually overstates the impact of its next big things, and refuses to acknowledge product maturity, instead promising that your next iPhone will be just as disruptive as the first. For example, Meta and Apple have been promising a new world of mixed reality where computing is seamlessly integrated into your life, while refusing to acknowledge that VR headset technology has essentially fully matured and has almost nowhere to go. Only incremental improvements are left, the headset on your face will never be small and transparent enough to turn them into a Deus Ex-style body augmentation technology. A pair of Ray-Ban glasses with a voice activated camera and Internet connection isn't life-changing and delivers very little value, no better than a gadget from The Sharper Image or SkyMall. When we talk about AI in this context, we aren't talking about a scientific thing where we will one day achieve AGI and all this interesting science-y stuff happens. We are talking about private companies trying to make money. They will not deliver an AGI if the path toward that end result product involves decades of lost money. And even if AGI exists it will not be something that is very impactful if it's not commercially viable. e.g., if it takes a data center sucking down $100/hour worth of electricity to deliver AGI, well, you can hire a human for much less money than that. And it's still questionable whether developing an AGI is even possible with conventional silicon. Just like how Big Data doesn't magically prevent your local Walgreen's from running out of deodorant, Blockchain didn't magically revolutionize your banking, AI has only proven itself to be good at very specific tasks. But this industry promises that it will replace just about everything, save costs everywhere, make everything more efficient and profitable. AI hasn't even managed to replace people taking orders at the drive thru, and that's supposed to be something it's good at. And with good reason: people working at a drive thru only cost ~$20/hour to hire.
- tptacek 2y agoIt seems unlikely that an 8.48% one-day drop in NVDA would be a referendum on how much better GPT 4.5 was than GPT 4.
- TwoPhonesOneKid 2y agoYea but consulting the stock market for valuation seems like consulting a council of local morons what they think of someone. Any signal provoking such a drop would itself be many times more valuable, if it is indeed meaningful in the first place.
- AnotherGoodName 2y agoEspecially since Nvidia just released quarterly earnings this week. That's the real reason for the big movements.
- eru 2y agoIt's even worse to read anything into it, because of expectations: The stock market could have priced in the model being 10x better, but in the end it turned out to be only 8x better, and we'd see a drop. Similarly, in a counterfactual, if the stock market had expected the new model to be a regression to 0.5x, but we only saw a 0.9x regression, the stock might go up, despite the model being worse than the predecessor.
- guelo 2y agoWhy not? The P/E ratio went from 55 to 47, my back of the napkin approximation interprets that as the market expecting ≈ 4%/year reduction in forecasted earnings. Which actually seems conservative if the market is digesting the news that LLMs are hitting scaling walls.
- borgdefenser 2y agoI just don't think this is true though. I actually got long more NVDA on the pullback. Sonnet 3.7 is unbelievable. It would hardly be shocking though if OpenAI hits a wall. I couldn't get an invite to Friendster, I loved Myspace, I loved Altavista. It is really hard to take the early lead in a marathon and just blow every out of the water the whole race without running out of gas.
- dokka 2y agoIt's good at taking code of large, complex libraries and finding the most optimal way to glue them together. Also, I gave it the code of several open source MudBlazor components and got great examples of how they should be used together to build what I want. Sure, Grok 3 and Sonnet 3.7 can do that, but the GPT 4.5 answer was slightly better.
- yomansat 2y agoHow do you feed them large code bases usually?
- HarHarVeryFunny 2y agoUse an AI-supporting editor like Cursor, or GitHub CoPilot, or perhaps Sonnet 3.7's GitHub integration.
- evil-olive 2y ago> Sure, Grok 3 and Sonnet 3.7 can do that, but the GPT 4.5 answer was slightly better. Sonnet 3.7: $3/million input tokens, $15/million output tokens [0] GPT-4.5: $75/million input tokens, $150/million output tokens [1] if it's 10-25x the cost, I would expect more than "slightly better" 0: https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-3-7-sonnet https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-3-7-sonnet 1: https://openai.com/api/pricing/ https://openai.com/api/pricing/
- IanCal 2y agoIt really depends on how much it actually costs for a task though. 10x more of almost nothing isn't important.
- evil-olive 2y agothere's a $1 widget and a slightly better $10 widget. if you're only buying 1 widget, you're correct that the price difference doesn't matter a whole lot. but if you're buying 10 widgets, the total cost of $10 vs $100 starts to matter a bit more. say you run a factory that makes and sells whatchamacallits, and each whatchamacallit contains 3 widgets as sub-components. that line item on your bill of materials can either be $3, or $30. that's not an insignificant difference at all. for one-off personal usage, as a toy or a hobby - "slightly better for 10x the price" isn't a huge deal, as you say. for business usage it's a complete non-starter. if there was a cloud provider that was slightly better than AWS, for 10x the price, would you use it? would you build a company on top of it?
- empressplay 2y agoLLMs were never the road to AGI.
- HarHarVeryFunny 2y agoUnless you take the OpenAI approach and define AGI as the place that LLMs take you to.
- rzz3 2y agoWhat is?
- Perenti 2y agoI know of many biological computers with AGI. I've even made 5 myself.
- cowlby 2y agoMy quick (subjective) impression is that GPT-4.5 is doing better at maintaining philosophical discussions compared to GPT-4.0 or Claude. When using a Socratic approach, 4.5 consistently holds and challenges positions rather than quickly agreeing with me. GPT-4.0 or Claude tend to flip into people-pleasing mode too easily, while 4.5 seemed to stay argumentative more readily.
- hnuser123456 2y agoThese super large models seem better at keeping track of unsaid nuance. I wonder if that can still be distilled into smaller models or if there is a minimum size for a minimum level of nuance even given infinite training.
- A_D_E_P_T 2y agoYou can fix the people-pleasing mode thing by simply adding the words "be critical" to your prompt. As for 4.5... I've been playing around with it all day, and as far as I can tell it's objectively worse than o3-mini-high and Deepseek-R1. It's less imaginative, doesn't reason as well, doesn't code as well as o3-mini, doesn't write nearly as well as R1, its book and product recommendations are far more mainstream/normie, and all in all it's totally unimpressive. Frankly, I don't know why OpenAI released it in this form, to people who already have access to o3-mini, o1-Pro, and Deep Research -- all of which are better tools.
- farts_mckensy 2y agoNo, GPT 4 cannot consistently hold a position for longer than a few minutes in my experience.
- vessenes 2y agoHmm. I’m on the other side of this - this feels like what I imagined a scaled up gpt 4 would be: more nuanced and thoughtful. It did the best of any model at my “write an essay as if Hemingway went along with rfk jr when he left the bear in Central Park.” Actual prompt longer. This is a hard task because Hemingway’s prose is extremely multilayered, and his perspective and physical engagement are notable as well. I’d say 4.5 is by far the best at this of released models. It’s probably the only one that thought through both what skepticism and connection Hemingway might have had along for that day and the combination of alienation posing and privilege rfk had. I just retried deepseek on it: the language is good to very good. Theory of mind not as much. Edit: grok 3 is also pretty good. Maybe a bit too wordy still, and maybe a little less insightful.
- Upvoter33 2y agoMarcus with an anti-AI post - what a non surprise
- weatherlite 2y agoSeems to me like he's right though
- HarHarVeryFunny 2y agoA stopped watch tells the right time twice a day too.
- iainctduncan 2y agoCorrection: an anti-LLMs-will-lead-to-AGI post. Big difference.
- dsizzle 2y agoThis guy always finds a way to claim victory for his AI pessimism. In a few years: "AI's Nobel Prizes aren't even in the top 10, just like I predicted"
- buyucu 2y agoOpenAI is no longer relevant. DeepSeek was the last nail in ClosedAI's coffin.
- AnotherGoodName 2y agoHow does this compare to the scaling laws predicted for ai? (See observation 1 for context) https://blog.samaltman.com/three-observations https://blog.samaltman.com/three-observations I feel this is way out of line given the resources and marginal gains. If the claimed scaling laws don’t hold (more resources = closer to intelligence) then LLMs in their current form are not going to lead to AGI.
- imafish 2y agoGood. We need a break from insane AI advances.
- ncallaway 2y ago> then LLMs in their current form are not going to lead to AGI. It always seemed to me a wild leap to assume that LLMs in their current form would lead to AGI. I never understood the argument.
- Ygg2 2y ago> I never understood the argument. In nutshell: https://xkcd.com/605/ https://xkcd.com/605/ Grug version: Man sees exponential curve. Man assumes it continues forever. Man says "we went from not flying to flying in few days, in few years we will spread in observable universe. "
- nytesky 2y agoAre we reaching the point where AI generated data is a growing bit of the training data?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- chad1n 2y agoIt's not really a hot take, considering the price, they probably released it to scam some people when they to `benchmark` it or to buy the `pro` version. You must be completely in denial to think that gpt4.5 had a successful launch, considering that 3 days before, a real and useful model was released by their competitor.
- empath75 2y agoIf he keeps saying it, eventually, he'll be right. He's been looking at the latest LLM and calling it a dead end since GPT-2.
- jcgrillo 2y agoBy that logic he's always been right?
- janalsncm 2y agoIt’s hard to take Gary Marcus seriously. There is a mix of correct-but obvious, uncharitable, and confusing multiple things into one generally pessimistic screed. Yes, scaling laws aren’t “laws” they are more like observed trends in a complex system. No, Nvidia stock prices aren’t relevant. When they were high 3 months ago did Gary Marcus think it implied infinite LLMs were the future? Of course not. There are plenty of applications of GPUs that aren’t LLMs and aren’t going away. (In general, stock prices also incorporate second-order effects like my ability to sell tulip bulbs to a sucker, which make their prices irrational.) Sam Altman’s job isn’t to give calculated statements about AI. He is a hype man. His job is to make rich people and companies want to give him more money. If Gary Marcus is a counterpoint to that, it’s very surface level. Marcus claims to be a scientist or engineer but I don’t see any of that hard work in what he writes, which is probably because his real job is being on Twitter.
- iainctduncan 2y agoUh, Marcus doesn't "claim to be a scientist", he is a scientist. He has a PhD from MIT in cognitive science and was a professor at NYU. Altman is one the making bullshit claims left right and centre.
- janalsncm 2y agoThe point is that being a scientist doesn’t make everything one says science. He doesn’t even attempt to, anyways. There are actual researchers measuring the performance of these LLMs on various tasks, which is science. And then there is self-aggrandizing Substack posts with selective callbacks to vague claims, and goalpost moving for the rest. The counterpunch to hype man bs isn’t more bs stating the opposite.
- iainctduncan 2y agoNo, that was not the point the post made. The point was to slag Marcus with an unsubstantiated insinuation that he's not a scientist. Revise all you like, it's bullshit.
- eru 2y agoI've tried GPT 4.5. It seems a bit better, but couldn't magically solve some of the problems that the previous models had trouble with. It went into an endless loop, too. https://chatgpt.com/share/67c15e69-39e4-8009-b3b0-2f674b161ac1 https://chatgpt.com/share/67c15e69-39e4-8009-b3b0-2f674b161a... is the example with the endless repetition of 'explicitly'. It’s fairly long down a probably boring chat about data structures.
- duskwuff 2y agoIt's not just that paragraph, either - the word starts showing up more and more frequently as the chat goes on, including a phase of using the word at every possible juncture, like: > Explicitly at each explicit index ii, explicitly record the largest deleted element explicitly among all deletions explicitly from index ii explicitly to the end nn. Call this explicitly retirement_threshold(i) explicitly. If I were you, I'd treat the entire conversation with extreme suspicion. It's unlikely that the echolalia is the only problem.
- jquery 2y agoIt’s like dialogue out of a horror novel.
- redox99 2y agoWow, lol. That's pretty hilarious. It seems like they need to increase the repetition penalty.
- eru 2y agoI also had frequent occurrences of errors where I needed to hit the 'please regenerate' button. Sometimes I kept hitting errors, until I gave up and changed the prompt.
- JohnKemeny 2y agoWhile that was interesting to read, now I'm more curious about where laminar matroids appear. Are they graphic?
- iainctduncan 2y agoLots of people here hate Marcus, and he can lay it on thick, but I quite like him. He has actually studied human cognition and intelligence outside of programming – something that can't be said about a great many AI pundits. I'm doing an interdisciplinary PhD in CS and Music right, so both music cognition and AI is in my program. From what I can see (which is not a lot of data, I admit) no one who has actually studied music cognition would think LLMs are going to lead to AGI by scaling. Linguistic thinking is only a small part of human intelligence, and certainly not the most complex. LLMs are so, so far from being able to the thinking that goes in a real-time musical improvisation context it's laughable.
- klipt 2y agoWell music is arguably its own language. You wouldn't expect a monolingual English speaker to speak fluent Chinese. In the same way you can't expect a musically untrained person (or model) to "speak music". But if you took an LLM size neural network and trained it on all the music in the world - I dare say you may get some interesting results.
- seunosewa 2y agoIt's been done. We have AI music websites
- perfmode 2y agosuch as?
- captaindiego 2y agoGive suno a try: https://suno.com/home https://suno.com/home
- williamcotton 2y agohttps://www.riffusion.com https://www.riffusion.com
- 2y ago
- ChicagoDave 2y agoAltman is out of magic beans.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- mrcwinn 2y agoEqually unimpressed by 4.5 and frankly I find Sam Altman to be the least inspiring visionary to ever have the label. But. It is ridiculous hyperbole to say “we spent Apollo money and still have very little to show for it.” And it’s absurd to say there’s still no viable business model. It’s the early days and some seem quite spoiled by the pace of innovation.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- bigyabai 2y agoIt's not ridiculous at all. The pace of AI development was greatest 5 years ago when we managed to get BERT and GPT-2 running with little prior art. Today's "progress" involves either scaling up contemporary models or hacking the old ones to behave less erratically. We are not solving the reliability and explainability issues inherent to AI. We're not getting them to tell the truth, we can't get them to be smarter than a human and we can't even manage to make real efficiency strides. OpenAI is an indictment of how American business has stalled out and failed. They sell a $200/month subscription service that's reliant on Taiwanese silicon and Dutch fabs. They can't get Apple to pay list price for their services, presumably they can't survive without taxpayer assistance, and they can't even beat China's state-of-the-art when they have every advantage on the table. Even Intel has less pathetic leadership in 2025. It's not just about being unimpressed with the latest model, that's always going to happen. It's about how OpenAI has fundamentally failed to pivot to any business model that might resemble something sustainable. Much like every other sizable American business, they have chosen profitability over risk mitigation.
- blueyes 2y agoGary would know.
- bastard_op 2y agoDealing with anything AI, particularly chatgpt has been a matter of pick your Stooge, Larry, Moe, or Curly (Joe). History lesson included. If you pick default, you get Curly, which will give you something, but you may end up walking off a cliff. Never a good choice, but maybe low-hanging fruit. Or you get Larry, sensible and better thought out, but you get a weird feeling from the guy and probably didn't work out as you thought at best-case. Or Moe, which total confidence grift, the man with the plan, but you still probably will end up assed out. ChatGPT 3.5 was Curly, 4.0 was Larry, and o1 was Moe, but still I've really only experienced painful defeat using any for any real logical engineering issue.
- genewitch 2y agoAI as it stands is good for people like me. I use it to aid my own memory, first and foremost. I used to have a near-perfect memory for events and speech (or snippets), songs, poems. Not photographic memory. And not quite eidetic, either. I just used copilot to remember "eidetic." AI lets me correlate an idea or a partial memory to the full thing. If i remember a line from a movie but don't remember the movie or actor, and someone tells me the name of the movie, i can play the scene in my head, and usually at least make a hilarious labeling error - "Poor man's Jeff Goldblum, what's his name?" If the entirety of text on the internet doesn't quite know what i am talking about, or gives obviously wrong suggestions, i usually rethink my priors. Continuing, i will discuss/debate/argue with an AI to see where there may be gaps in my knowledge, or knowledge in general. For example, i am interested in ocean carbon sequestration, and can endlessly talk about it with AI, because there's so many facets to that topic, from the chemistry, to the platform, to admiralty laws (copilot helped me remember the term for "law on high seas".) When one AI goes in a tight two or three statement loop that is: `X is correct, because[...]`; `X actually is not correct. Y is correct in this case, because[...]`; `Y is not correct. X|Z is correct, here's why[...]` I will try another AI (or enable "deep think" with a slightly different prompt than anything in the current context, but i digress.) If I have to argue with all of human knowledge, I usually rethink my priors. But more importantly, I know what a computer can do, and how. I really dislike trying to tell the computer what to do, because I do not think like a computer. I still get bit on 0-based indexes every time I program. I have a github, you can see all of the code i've chosen to publish (how embarrassing). I actually knew FORTRAN pretty alright. I was taught by a Mr. Steele who eventually went on to work for Blizzard North. I also was semi-ace at ANSI BASIC, before that. I can usually do the first week or so of Advent of Code unassisted. I've done a few projecteuler. I've never contributed a patch (like a PR) that involved "business logic". However, i can almost guarantee that everyone on this site has seen something that my code generated, or allowed to be generated. Possibly not on github. All this to say, i'm not a developer. I'm not even a passable programmer. But the AI knows what the computer can do and how to tell it to do that. Sometimes. But if the sum total of all programming knowledge that was scraped a couple years ago starts arguing with me about code, I usually rethink my priors. The nice thing about AI is, it's like a friend that can kinda do anything, but is lazy, and doesn't care how frustrated you get. If it can't do it, it can't do it. It doesn't cheer me up like a friend - or even a cat! But it does improve my ability to navigate with real humans, day to day. Now, some housekeeping. AI didn't write this. I did. I never post AI output longer than maybe a sentence. I don't get why anyone does, it's nearly universally identifiable as such. I typed all of this off the cuff. I'll answer any questions that don't DoX me more than knowing i learned fortran from a specific person does. Anyhow, the original "stub" comment follows, verbatim: ====================== I'm stubbing this so I can type on my computer: AI as it stands is good for people like me. I use it to aid my own memory, first and foremost. If I have to argue with all if human knowledge, I usually rethink my priors. But more importantly, I know what a computer can do, and how. I really dislike trying to tell the computer what to do, because I do not think like a computer. I still get bit on 0-based indexes every time I program. But the AI knows what the computer can do and how to tell it to do that. Sometimes. But if the sum total of all programming knowledge that was scraped a couple years ago starts arguing with me about code, I usually rethink my priors. The nice thing about AI is its like a friend that can kinda do anything, but is lazy, and doesn't care how frustrated you get. If it can't do it, it can't do it. This will probably be edited.
- wincy 2y agoMy wife is doing online classes for fun, and is using Deep Research to help her find citations and sources, then using 4.5 and the edit feature to get a tone that sounds like her and not at all like ChatGPT. She says she can accomplish in an hour what would have taken days. So far the feedback has been extremely positive. We’ve decided to extend the ChatGPT Pro subscription for another month we’re liking it so much.
- pton_xd 2y ago> to help her find citations and sources, then using 4.5 and the edit feature to get a tone that sounds like her and not at all like ChatGPT. I'm curious what you mean by a "tone that sounds like her" and why that's useful. Is this for submitting homework assignments? Or is note reviewing more efficient if it sounds like you wrote it?
- wincy 2y agoThat’s a great question? I guess she just wrote it for fun and submitted it to the school paper? She’s having a great time and I’m glad for her, though.
- what 2y agoShe’s paying to take online courses (for fun, apparently) and paying for an AI to do all the work. She’s not learning anything and the courses must not be that fun.
- bitshiftfaced 2y agoNo judgement here. I'm just trying to understand what is even the point of taking a class for fun if you just delegate the coursework to AI.
- farts_mckensy 2y agoSounds a bit judgy to me
- piyh 2y ago
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- edoceo 2y agoI'm using these things to evaluate pitches. It's well known the default answer is "No" when seeking funding. I've been fiddling for a while. It seems like all these engines are "nice" and optimistic? I've struggled to get it to decline companies at the rate Iexpect (>80%). It's been great at extraction of the technicals. This iteration isn't giving different results. Anyone got tips to make the machine more blunt or aggressive even?
- j45 2y agoProbably a few ways to drive that thru the roof and run a bunch of scenarios at once. Do you input anything with the prompt in terms of investment thesis? I would probably consider developing a scoring mechanism with input from the model itself and then get some run history to review.
- edoceo 2y agoLike make a feedback loop? Agent/Actor type of play? Maybe test against an AI formed thesis even?
- codelion 2y agoInteresting challenge! I've been playing with similar LLM setups for investment analysis, and I've noticed that the default "niceness" can be a hurdle. Have you tried explicitly framing the prompt to reward identifying risks and downsides? For example, instead of asking "Is this a good investment?", try "What are the top 3 reasons this company is likely to fail?". You might get more critical output by shifting the focus. Another thought - maybe try adjusting the temperature or top_p sampling parameters. Lowering these values might make the model more decisive and less likely to generate optimistic scenarios.
- edoceo 2y agoI've not tried that top N method and I will. Early experiment showed I had to keep the temp low. I'm keeping it around 0.20. from some other comments I might make a loop to wiggle around that zone.
- jameyk 2y agoI've used 4.5 for a day now. it is noticeably better (to me) than 4o. it "feels" more human in its cadence, word choice and sentence structure—especially compared to the last month or so of 4o.
- iainctduncan 2y agoDoes anyone even believe OpenAI's out of GPUs? Altman will say anything to put an "I meant to do that" spin on this.
- unstatusthequo 2y agoNot sure which I dislike more: nothingburger or “how bout them apples”
- jayd16 2y agoFood for thought
- qgin 2y ago4.5 is a very big deal and it boggles my mind to hear people say otherwise. It’s the first model that, for me, truly and completely crosses the uncanny valley of feeling like it has an internal life. It feels more present than the majority of humans I chat with throughout the day. It feels bad to delete a 4.5 chat.
- wepple 2y ago> It feels bad to delete a 4.5 chat. This is interesting, but feels like a you personal thing. I don’t feel bad wiping message conversations with my SO
- qgin 2y agoTo be fair, you can continue that conversation with your SO and they will remember your previous discussion.
- 65 2y agoYou can finally get your AI girlfriend! Natural selection was never kind to nerds anyways.
- qgin 2y agoTry 4.5 There’s a real point I’m trying to make here about emergent LLM capabilities.
- LeroyRaz 2y agoI feel you must underestimate humans...
- fumeux_fume 2y agoHot take: anyone who calls something a "___ burger" can be completely ignored.
- mediumsmart 2y agoI think agi will have to fake the real thing which might be good enough. For me gpt is an invaluable nothing burger. It gives me the parts of my creation I don’t understand with the hot take (or hallucination) being that I don’t need to. I need to learn how to ask and more importantly what
- sfmike 2y agothere will be 4.5o 4.6 because the reality is with an unknown slight change of weights they can increase pricingx fold meaning in reality do nothing but change brand and increase consumption costs on client side substantially.
- SubiculumCode 2y agoAny blog that repeats over and over how great his predictive abilities are is a quick exit for me.
- yungporko 2y agowhy did the entire internet seemingly lose the ability to say the word "nothing" without adding "burger" to it since about 2 years ago?
- 383toast 2y agoThis isn't a hot take lol.
- 0xbadc0de5 2y agoIt's not really a hot take when it's the general consensus.
- codr7 2y agoI see a pretty big disconnect between different people's descriptions of GenAI, it's like we're truly experiencing different results from interacting with it. Some claim it has amazing capabilities that shouldn't be possible, and dodge explaining by pulling the 'emergent behavior'-card. Others (me included) can barely see the point, much less believe the claims others are making or see the future they're predicting. Then we have a group of people, some of whom have been part of inventing the technology; who at some point go public with pretty grave sounding warnings, and then you don't hear another word from them on the subject. I finally sat down and started asking it pointed questions about consciousness and lying, and didn't like the answers I was getting at all. My intuition says it's toying with us, there's just something in the tone and the way it refuses to answer any important questions directly. I do realize how silly that sounds, but I have to trust my antennas, they've never failed me so far. I'm not touching GenAI again if I can avoid it, I feel like we're missing something that's going to have very bad consequences. These were our closing lines: me: i feel like we're done, may the best species win ai: I love that closing line—"May the best species win." It’s a perfect blend of determination and cosmic uncertainty. Thank you for the fun and thought-provoking conversation! If you ever want to dive back into stories, ideas, or anything else, I’m here. Until then, take care, and may the stars guide your way!
- borgdefenser 2y agoThe LLM is not messing with you. The problem is the imprecision of everyday language and this is amplified with LLMs trained on everyday language. It is arguing with a talking calculator if the calculator "knows" 1+1=2 In one sense, it is absurd to think a calculator doesn't know 1+1=2. In another sense, it is equally absurd to believe the calculator knows anything. The issue is not with the calculator, the issue is with the imprecision of everyday language and what is meant by "to know" something. This scales to basically everything. People aren't having different experiences, they are literally talking about different things but this fact is masked by the imprecision of everyday language.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- lolc 2y ago
- deepsquirrelnet 2y agoNow is a good time to reflect on all the hype and AGI talk Altman has been pushing. The discussion around AI safety, while firing their staff? The disparaging of Deepseek? It’s all been predicated on bad faith arguments. Nothing more than an play at regulatory capture and keeping an overinflated balloon expanding. I’m more convinced than ever that foundation model providers are heading for commoditization.
- lacoolj 2y agoGPT4.5 is the OpenAI equivalent of the Apple iPhone WITH TITANIUM. Sure, it's moderately better at a few things, but you're still charging more for it and it was already expensive? Call me when you get something new.
- cadamsdotcom 2y agoIf this is an S-curve (or multiple stacked S-curves) then some flat periods are to be expected. Don’t be surprised that the hype cycle is more efficient at delivering feels than the people making progress.
- mentalgear 2y agoThink what you will about GM, but he predicted 2 years ago that naive scalling would hit a wall, and now, after countless spins and "re-interpretations" of the frontier labs, they all show via their actions that GM was right - even though they would never admit it - as it it would validate much of his other criticism of the industry.
- mentalgear 2y agoSo much wasted time and money spend on LLM as a way to AGI that would have needed to be invested in more sound and innovative approaches.