6 ms·

4.5 can extremely quickly distill and work with what I at least consider, complex nuanced thought. 4.5 is night and day better than every other AI for my work,

• ttul 2y ago
  I believe 4.5 is a very large and rich model. The price is high because it's costly to inference; however, the bigger reason is to ensure that others don't distill from it. Big models have a rich latent space, but it takes time to squeeze the juice out.
  • esafak 2y ago
    That also means people won't use it. Way to shoot yourself in the foot. The irony of a company that has distilled the word's information complaining about another company distilling their model...
    • cscurmudgeon 2y ago
      My assumption: There will be use cases where cost of using this will be smaller than the gain from it. Data from this will make the next version better and cheaper.
    • ttul 2y ago
      The small number of use cases that do pay are providing gross margins as well as feedback that helps OpenAI in various ways. I don’t think it’s a stupid move at all.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• nyrikki 2y ago
  The 4.5 has better 'vibes' but isn't 'better', as a concrete example: > Mission is the operationalized version of vision; it translates aspiration into clear, achievable action. The "Mission is the operationalized version of vision" is not in the corpus that I am find and is obviously a confabulated mixture of classic Taylorist like "strategic planning" SOPs and metrics, which will be tied to compensation and the unfortunate ubiquitous nature of Taylorism would not result in shared purpose, but a bunch of Gantt charts past the planning horizon. IMHO I would consider "complex nuanced thought" as understanding the historical issues and at least respect the divide between classical and neo-classical org theory. Or at least avoid pollution of more modern theories with classical baggage that is a significant barrier to delivering value. Mission statements need to share strategic intent in an actionable way, strategy is not operationalization.
  • neom 2y ago
    The statement "Mission is the operationalized version of vision; it translates aspiration into clear, achievable action" isn't a Taylorist reduction of mission to mechanical processes - it's actually a nuanced understanding of how these organizational elements relate. You're misinterpreting what "operationalized" means in this context. From what i can tell, the 4.5 response isn't suggesting Taylorist implementation with Gantt charts etc it's describing how missions translate vision into actionable direction while remaining strategic. Instead of jargon, it's recognizing that founders need something between abstract vision and tactical execution. Missions serve this critical bridging function. CEO has vision, orgs capture the vision into their missions, people find their purpose when aligned via the 2. Without it, founders either get stuck in aspirational thinking or jump straight to implementation details without strategic guidance. The distinction matters exactly because it helps avoid the dysfunction that prevents startups from scaling effectively. I think you're assuming "operationalized" means tactical implementation (Gantt charts, SOPs) when in this context it means "made operational/actionable at a strategic level". Missions != mission statements. Also, you're creating a false dichotomy between "strategic intent" and "operationalization" when they very much, exist on a spectrum. (If anything, connecting employees to mission and purpose is the opposite of Tayloristic thinking, which viewed workers more as interchangeable parts than as stakeholders in a shared mission towards responding to a shared vision of global change) - You are doing what o1 pro did, and as I said: As a tool for teaching business to founders, personally, I find the 4.5 response to be better.