5 ms·
I still think GPT5 is really a cost cutting measure, with a company that is trying to grow to 1 billion users on a product that needs GPUs. I dont see anyone t
by mikert89 1y ago
I still think GPT5 is really a cost cutting measure, with a company that is trying to grow to 1 billion users on a product that needs GPUs.
I dont see anyone talking about GPT 5 Pro, which I personally tested against:
- Grok 4 Heavy
- Opus 4.1
It was far better than both of those, and is completely state of the art.
The real story is running these models at true performance max likely could go into the thousands per month per user. And so we are being constrained. OpenAI isnt going for that market segment, they are going for growth to take on Google.
This article doesnt have one reference to the Pro model. Completely invalidates this guys opinion
- w00ds 1y agoDoes Pro fix the fundamental issues he describes? I would think it would have to do that to "completely invalidate his opinion", rather than just be better than the base model.
- p1esk 1y agoHe didn’t describe any fundamental issues.
- furyofantares 1y agoI don't think Pro is usable via the API, otherwise I'd be testing it. Is it usable through Codex CLI, given they updated that to be able to use your subscription?
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- patrickhogan1 1y agoI agree here but also believe it was a way to expose better models to the masses. o3 was so spectacularly good. But a lot of people were still not using it. Even some of my friends who use ChatGPT daily I would say are you using o3 and get a blank stare. So I think it’s also a way to push reasoning models to the masses. Which increases OpenAI’s cost. But due to the routing layer definitely cost cutting for power users (most of HN)… except power users can learn to force it to use the reasoning model.
- mikert89 1y agoThey are clearly building the product for mass adoption, not power users
- atonse 1y agoHonestly as a daily (pro) user of ChatGPT, I didn’t even know o3 was the best, I thought 4o incorporated it (hence the o) I remember reading that 4o was the best general purpose one, and that o3 was only good for deeper stuff like deep research. The crappy naming never helped.
- Workaccount2 1y agoThe poor context length of O3 really cripples it.
- adeptima 1y agochecked my network - no one is using GPT 5 Pro ... any feedback is greatly appreciated!!! especially comparing with o3
- A_D_E_P_T 1y agoI don't think that GPT-5 Pro is much better (if better at all) than o3-pro. It's markedly slower. Output quality is comparable. It's still quite gullible and misses the point sometimes. It does seem better, however slightly, at suggesting novel approaches to problem solving. My initial impressions are that 5-pro is maybe 0-2% more knowledgeable and 5-10% more inventive/original than o3-pro. The "tone" and character of the models feel exactly the same. I'll agree that it's superhuman and state-of-the-art at certain tasks: Formal logic, data analysis, and basically short analytical tasks in general. It's better than any version of Grok or Gemini. When it comes to writing prose, and generally functioning as a writing bot, it's a poor model, obviously and transparently worse than Kimi K2 and Deepseek R1. (It never ceases to amaze me that the best English prose stylists are the Chinese models. It's not just that they don't write in GPT's famous "AI style," it's to the point where Kimi is actually on par with most published poets.)
- mikert89 1y agoI think it is, I've been using these models for 6 hours a day for almost a year. At any given time I have 2 of the max subscriptions (right now grok and openai). I have a bug that was a complex interaction between backend and front end over websockets. The day before I was banging my head against the wall with o3 pro and grok heavy, gpt5 solved it first try. I think its also true that most people arent pushing the limits on the models, and dont even really know how to correctly push the limits. Which is also why openai is not focussed on the best models
- I_am_tiberius 1y agoSimilar usage as me, but I don't see a difference between o3-pro and 5-pro. Sounds odd, but my impression is that o1-pro was better at creating complex independent small functions than o3-pro/5-pro.
- mikert89 1y agoActually will agree that o1 pro was better than o3 at really deep bug finding/coding analysis. Which is also why i have the theory that they could just turn up the compute to show better results, but dont do to cost. O3 and GPT5 seem heavily quantized, o1 pro was more raw Another thing I’ll add though, is o3 pro is better through the api than the chat website. They clearly constrain it unless you’re paying the absurd api cost
- awesome_dude 1y agoOne of the things that I have realised is, at this moment in time, it's absolutely a bad idea to buy a subscription for any of the models right now. The offerings are evolving and upgrading at quite a rapid pace, so locking into one company's offering, or another's, is really wasted money (Why pay 200/year upfront for something that looks like it will be outdated within the next month (or quarter)) > The real story is running these models at true performance max likely could go into the thousands per month per user. A loss leader model like that failed for Uber, because there really wasn't any other constraints on competition doing the same, including under pricing to capture market share - meaning it's a race to the bottom plus a test on whose pockets were the deepest.
- heyoni 1y agoJust pay per month then.
- awesome_dude 1y agoEven a monthly payment is unnecessary at this moment - again the evolution of the quality of the models, but also the free tier offerings for each model (you can still use the older model's free tier, it was working enough before) I personally haven't tried GPT 5 yet, but I am getting all I need from Claude and Gemini. Once I start experimenting with GPT 5.0 - I will still use Claude and Gemini when I run out of free uses.
- diego_sandoval 1y agoThe annoyance of having to switch to a different model and losing my context is enough for me to pay the 20 dollars a month. These models make me much more productive anyway. That is worth far more than $20.
- awesome_dude 1y agoI've had Claude tell me that I've reached the maximum messages for a session, which was painful. Having said that it was a good circuit breaker, Claude was stuck on three wrong solutions to an issue, and having to re explain it meant that I realised what the bug was without further input from Claude edit: FTR where Claude was stuck (and where it helped me) First, I have a TUI application, written in Go, that is using https://github.com/rivo/tview https://github.com/rivo/tview - I chose tview basically at random, having no background in any of the TUI libraries available, but tview looked like it was easy to understand. I had written some of the code, but it wasn't doing what I wanted of it. I had gotten Gemini to help me, but it still wasn't doing what I wanted. Claude first suggested that the application needed to be refactored to make it into an Event Driven MVC TUI app, which I absolutely agreed with. Claude counselled me on my understanding of the Run() command, and how it was a blocking call (which I hadn't realised). The refactor/re-architecture fixed the way things were being run a great deal. However I still had a bug that I could not fix, and Claude was equally stumped (as was Gemini) When I clicked on any of the components in a flex row, the first component behaved as though it was the one that was clicked. When I clicked on any of the components in another flex row the last one behaved as though it was the one that had been clicked. Claude repeatedly told me that the problem was that the closure that used the index of components (inside a loop) was the problem. This was outright wrong because 1. That bug has been fixed in Go. 2. The code I was sharing with Claude had the "fix" of local := index - meaning that the local version should have been correct 3. I repeatedly showed Claude logs (that it suggested I create) that showed that ALL of the components were in fact receiving the click event. The second solution that Claude was fixated on was that th components overlapped one another inside the flex box. This was partially incorrect. I told Claude that I could visually see that the components weren't overlapping. I also told Claude that there were borders around each component that clearly weren't overlapping. I gave Claude debug logs that showed that the mouse click co-ordinates were inside a single component. The third issue that Claude claimed was the problem was a click propagation bug in the library. Claude repeated these claims several times, despite me showing that it wasn't either of the first two things, and I could not find a bug/issue for the third. The circuit breaking made me stop and think about things, and I realised that all I really had to do was say inside the box "If a click event has been received AND (and this was the fix) You (the component) now have focus then behave". What I suspect is happening is that the flex box container receives the click, and then tells all of its children that a click happened. What disappoints me is, if what I suspect is true, then I would have expected Claude to have known that either from the tview documentation OR from reading the tview code (Claude does seem well acquainted with the library) If my suspicion is correct then the second and third issues Claude claimed were causing me the bug were partially true, that is the flex container is on top of the components, which is an overlap, just not the components themselves overlapping. The second partial correctness is that the way that the click is being propagated to the components seems to be that the flex box container is telling all of its child components that a click occurred. This isn't really a bug, it's likely well documented (as if I would RTFM...) or clear from the code.
- krnsll 1y agoAgreed. Something else that might be driving this is that existing models essentially get the job done for most users, who —- unlike HN commenters (I promise this is human generated, em dash notwithstanding ;P) —- don't quite about the state of the art.