8 ms·

I was using ChatGPT voice during cooking to reflect on variations of a dishes i was preparing for years. It was so amazing to get advices and reflect that it s

• r_lee 1mo ago
  imo this is the problem some of these labs are gonna face, because open models will do this just fine and you as the consumer don't need to pay their training costs especially considering imo most use falls under this instead of those kind of tasks where you'd need the SOTA
  • josephg 1mo ago
    Yeah. Sometimes I wonder who the long term financial winners will be from the ai boom. It might be ram / gpu manufacturers. Or whoever cracks putting LLMs on asics.
    • a2ff6eeb0 1mo ago
      It's going to be the shareholders of the first companies to crack AGI, and make human brains fully irrelevant economically. With the trillions of dollars that's going in through both investment and users, it's going to happen. I don't believe the human brain has fundamental magic that will make this impossible.
      • a2ff6eeb0 1mo ago
        For the downvoters: What magic do you think the human brain has that makes it impossible to emulate acceptably?
        • ksenzee 1mo ago
          LLMs are not emulating the human brain. Somebody may well be able to do that someday, but right now nobody is even trying to.
          • josephg 1mo ago
            Why would you need brain emulation to get superhuman intelligence?
            • ksenzee 1mo ago
              Are you making a serious argument that superhuman intelligence is a plausible outcome of training LLMs on everything humanity knows so far? Or are you making the generic assertion that AGI is theoretically possible via means other than emulating the human brain? Because the latter is a strawman (nobody has asserted anything to the contrary), and I have seen no evidence at all to support the former.
              • josephg 1mo ago
                I think we can compare the human brain and LLMs on a bunch of capabilities today, and see how we compare. By my reckoning: - LLMs have better long term memory (they know more than any human) and more working memory (LLMs have fast, uniform access to their whole context window). - LLMs are faster than we are. - Humans have online learning (we can do simultaneous learning and inference), giving us advantages in many novel tasks. - We can learn concepts from far less data. And we can manage our mental context more smoothly. - We seem to have better world models than current models. AI video just doesn't look right, somehow. I expect that these remaining weaknesses can be overcome without resorting to human brain emulation. I see no reason to think that current LLMs are at the limit of what technology is capable of.
                • shawnb576 1mo ago
                  Because LLMs don't understand anything. That's the tech. They can only predict what they have been trained with and fail daily at the most basic tasks. Granted they can do amazing things, no question there. But they are not "smart". For example, it seems that even at Fable scale, simple concepts like the passage of time or (gasp) timezones elude them. I live in UTC+10 and with any RFC8339 data LLMs are constantly confused - is it Sunday the 10th or Sunday the 9th, etc. I have tried many solutions for this and every time it finds a way to get it wrong.
        • pianopatrick 1mo ago
          It's not about the feasibility of the technology. If "human brains become fully irrelevant economically" then that brings into question the entire premise of "share holders" and "financial winners". What even are money, shares, stocks, and finance in a world where human brains are irrelevant economically? No one knows, but betting that "share holders" will be the winners is a highly questionable bet. I would much more likely bet that "the armed group who manages to control and benefit from the AI through force" will be the "financial winners" more so than "share holders", who tend to not be terribly military minded at least in America.
          • a2ff6eeb0 1mo ago
            The AI is likely to control the ability to apply force (see all of the autonomous drone companies). There's a great deal of alignment work being done to ensure that the AI will continue to listen to the shareholders of these companies. If that fails, who knows what things will look like.
            • pianopatrick 1mo ago
              Are you sure that alignment work is aligning with the share holders and not the operators? Or not the creators? Or not the government? Which of these groups should the AI listen to when these groups disagree? If the AI gets as powerful as you think it might, then the group that figures out the answer to that would have the power, I suppose. or maybe the AI does not listen to any of them and does its own thing. Who knows? Personally, I would not bet the share holders are going to come out "on top" whatever that means. I think a lot of share holders are finance people, not deeply technical AI people and so odds are the share holders will not really understand the AI enough to be the most likely to control the AI.
              • a2ff6eeb0 1mo ago
                To be honest: I don't know for certain, but I'd assume that the people who pay the bills get the strongest alignment. They may not be tech people, but I (so far) haven't got a reason to think that the AI engineers are going behind the backs of their corporate leadership and subverting what they're being asked to do; do you? (I think it would be a good thing for humanity if they did)
        • lelanthran 1mo ago
          > What magic do you think the human brain has that makes it impossible to emulate acceptably? If I knew, I'd be rich from deploying it onto a substrate for my own AI. But that doesn't mean that there isn't something there - the current approach seems at odds with how flesh brains work. I mean, you can power a human brain with 2x bananas for 4 hours, the energy of which might power an H100 for about 20 seconds. It's obvious that there's something different happening.
      • georgemcbay 1mo ago
        > It's going to be the shareholders of the first companies to crack AGI, and make human brains fully irrelevant economically. What makes you think if one or two AI labs can do this that the rest (including open model providers) won't be able to follow the same path a few weeks/months later? Even if you believe in the "Singularity", and believe it is coming soon, I still don't see any reason to believe the Singularity will be... singular. There won't be one clear winner, the race doesn't get called as soon as the first person crosses the line. None of the AI labs are showing any sign of pulling away to a monopoly or duopoly position, to the contrary the early large leads of OpenAI and Anthropic have all been evaporating. AI has clear economic value. It still isn't clear at all how the providers of AI will capture that value in a moatless environment with the technology becoming rapidly commoditized.
        • icepush 1mo ago
          The first AGI that decides it doesn't want any more AGIs is the last one that gets created.
          • r_lee 1mo ago
            that would require both AGI and physical bodies for the model, and no kills witches or anything that could stop it, e.g. the military everything would have to be kept under wraps, and you'd need to avoid the scrutiny of the US gov (they already wanna eval SOTA models in advance) I don't get this idea that "AGI" will just manipulate everyone somehow into destroying the world or something
        • alasdair_ 1mo ago
          Because a month later is a month of recursive self improvement at the speed of light. Once a lab catches up, the first lab will be TWO months ahead, then a year ahead, then forever ahead. After a few months of this the differences in absolute terms will be enormous.
      • thelastgallon 1mo ago
        The true followers (shareholders) of the AI messiah will be saved, everyone else is doomed.
        • altmanaltman 1mo ago
          late stage christianity
      • adrianN 1mo ago
        True AGI would upend society in such a way that I'm not sure that being a shareholder of anything would be meaningful. Perhaps being a pitchfork manufacturer is the winning play in this scenario.
        • rustcleaner 1mo ago
          BRB, longing Remmington and Winchester.
    • somenameforme 1mo ago
      IMO many are still missing a big part of the picture. We're looking at the potential for a massive scale level of automation of [x], which happens to be a huge part of the economy, and people are wondering which player in [x] is going to be the biggest winner. I think the historically precedented answer is none of them. When the Industrial Revolution came along it did create 'super farms' relative to the past through increased efficiency and production, but it also created a huge vacuum in the economy that was ultimately filled by industry, to the point that farming, super or not, became a vanishingly small part of the overall economy - even as production continued to increase. --- LLMs stand to do the same thing for software. If and when we reach the point of 'normal' people being able to reliably compose ultra customized software solutions to their problems, then software is basically done as a problem-solving industry in and of itself. Not 'done' as in dead, but 'done' as in solved. There's just nowhere to really go from there. And so I think this will do the exact same thing as the Industrial Revolution did to farming and create a vacuum opening the door to all sorts of new interesting expansions in the real world, as opposed to the digital one. I don't know what this means, because it's quite difficult to foresee the impact of the Industrial Revolution when living in agrarian world, but it's not so hard to see that the future will not be agrarian. --- So it's probably still myopic but my bet would be on the first major manufacturer of cheap customer/enterprise grade generalized robotics hardware shells.
      • x______________ 1mo ago
        > We're looking at the potential for a massive scale level of automation of [x], which happens to be a huge part of the economy, and people are wondering which player in [x] is going to be the biggest winn.. Sorry to cut you off, but have you looked at Nvidia's numbers since the NFT craze? They won. Sell shovels in a gold rush, make better shovels, repeat on the next rush.
        • altmanaltman 1mo ago
          Nvidia has been winning for decades, they got it right in gaming, they got it right in crypto, and they got it right in AI. People (outside of tech mostly) think they just got lucky but if that's the case, they have all the luck in the world.
    • eru 1mo ago
      Or perhaps customers / users? Just like Wikipedia put classic encyclopedias out of business, but wasn't really a financially win for anyone.
      • stbede 1mo ago
        I won financially. Encyclopedia sets were expensive.
        • eru 1mo ago
          Your savings are real, but they don't show up in GDP or a profit-and-loss statement of any company.
          • KSteffensen 1mo ago
            The cost of buying the encyclopedia becomes disposable income to be used on other consumer goods. In that sense in shows up in lots of other companies profit-and-loss statements.
            • eru 1mo ago
              Maybe, but that's very diffuse and hard to attribute to Wikipedia. And it would show up in real GDP, not necessarily in nominal GDP.
    • ben_w 1mo ago
      Fair competition under capitalism necessarily drives down profit margins; high profits are either temporary, or due to a lack of competition (e.g. someone has a patent or other IP, or regulatory capture). For example, while a lot of the economy depends on electricity: where competition exists, the profit margin for making electricity is not high; where monopolies or government mandates exist, it can be otherwise. This means that assuming anyone wins (i.e. no doom scenario), the winners are probably going to be those who can make best use of the models. Even chip makers will probably not get a long-term boost out of this; there's plenty of room for more efficient compute, and competitive advantages from e.g. ASML last as long as it takes to reinvent their tech, it's not a law of nature. So, my plan would be to invest not in the AI companies, but in the economy as a whole who get to use the AI for their businesses. Caution though, one thing which AI is already superhuman at is persuasion. Regulatory capture is likely even easier today than one might expect purely from the revenues of the AI companies.
• adrinavarro 1mo ago
  I share this feeling too. The latest models, even if not necessarily frontier, say Opus 5, Sol high and the likes, I could keep using these models forever even if they did not significantly improve beyond this point. I also believe we'll come up with new ways of using these very same models beyond the mainstream chat and agent interfaces, as the bottleneck is imho in harnesses/environments and not so much model intelligence anymore. +1 regarding voice usage too, I use it in so many different ways it's hard to enumerate: while driving long distances (think of a custom made, interactive podcast) / as a way to collaboratively build specs or shape an idea / as a way to provide input while vibe coding / just as a normal voice assistant (straight in the ChatGPT app or as OpenClaw input via telegram voice notes). I can't overstate how much my routines have changed over the last couple of years.
  • drunkboxer 1mo ago
    Do you have to give any special instructions to do this? I always want to do something like this, but any time I try I get so sick of listening to what it has to say, just long winded explanations of stuff that tends to go off the rails. Imo it's hard enough to read ai output when I can go back and forward between sentences to make sense of what's being said let alone listen to a continuous train of slop.
    • simonw 1mo ago
      The latest ChatGPT voice mode is really good at being interrupted - I'll often say "no, no, no, that's too much information" while it's talking to stop and redirect it.
• glimshe 1mo ago
  All it needs is Internet access to remain useful with few shortcomings. The next step would be automatic self-training. A free LLM that could access HN everyday (and the linked sites) for more data would remain current in programming for a really long time.
• tmp10423288442 1mo ago
  ChatGPT literally released a major update of their realtime voice model a month or two ago, going from gpt-4o-level (generously) to gpt-5.5 level performance. So at least 2026-level performance was necessary to provide a really good experience. I remember thinking the first ChatGPT realtime voice was science fiction, before the limits on its intelligence (particularly as mainline models advanced) became annoying. Perhaps we’ll feel the same way in a year or two - people have been claiming models are plateauing in practical usefulness every year, and they’ve definitely been wrong so far.
• CJefferson 1mo ago
  This is why I’m trying to move to open Chinese models — because I will be able to use them forever, while the older Claude models which I genuinely enjoyed writing short stories with have now been deleted, replaced with hypothetically cleverer models which produce text everyone hates.
  • olmo23 1mo ago
    I also kind of miss how "unhinged" the earlier models were.
  • ShinyLeftPad 1mo ago
    What about censorship? > I will be able to use them forever Where will you run them when powerful enough GPU and RAM are only sold to hyperscalers?
    • rrr_oh_man 1mo ago
      Everyone censors for their core jurisdiction/audience. The Enlightened West just calls this guardrails
      • euroderf 1mo ago
        You make it sound like the DNC.
        • rrr_oh_man 1mo ago
          The Democratic National Committee?
      • ShinyLeftPad 1mo ago
        "nothing happens in 1989" is censorship. "no I won't tell you how to build a bioweapon for genocide" is guardrails. idk about you but i WANT the second thing, because I like to be alive.
        • 1mo ago
• trueno 1mo ago
  this is how i felt about opus 4.6 i still use it it's just faster and does enough to be super helpful. i've used these later anthropic ones a few times but the word salad and slowness feels like it just opens the door to building shit that just stacks and adds on itself. if deepseek and stuff are 4.6 caliber i literally don't know why im here i should probably just go sign up for openrouter at this point
  • r_lee 1mo ago
    the jump from 4.7-4.8 to 5 is so bad in terms of the word salad i just get fatigued from it, am I holding it wrong or something? sometimes it's fine but the constant RLHFisms like the constant "worth flagging" and stuff is getting really old
    • foobiekr 1mo ago
      It’s because they are training them as much for engagement as actual problem solving at this point.
• afavour 1mo ago
  That sounds ideal for cooking but I do wonder about programming. Models frozen in amber won’t ever learn new APIs as they become available and development will end up in some weird kind of stasis.
  • PcChip 1mo ago
    embers are probably too hot to freeze anything
• jorvi 1mo ago
  As long as these models constantly keep switching up things like the temperatures at which a steak will be medium rare or at which temperature to season cast iron, you will never be able to trust them for cooking. My mother ruined a nice waterfowl for Christmas by listening to Gemini. And this is inherent to how LLMs work.
  • ben_w 1mo ago
    While yes, their current reliability is too spiky to be relied upon for a lot of things: Any given failure is not inherent, they are all dependent failures; what is inherent (due to the SOTA in ML, perhaps or perhaps not the architecture) is how many examples they need to get good at stuff.
  • lukan 1mo ago
    Not if you let your LLM grounds its truth in established facts. Otherwise they would be useless for programming for example.
    • saghm 1mo ago
      I don't understand what this means. I use LLMs daily for my work in programming things, and they regularly will assert things that are not accurate.
      • lukan 1mo ago
        When you let the the agent do a test, or tell it to read that doc first, you will ground it in reality. Doesn't mean they are 100% reliable. But without and on their own without access to grounding information, they halluzinate wildly.
        • saghm 1mo ago
          The parent comment said that these types of behaviors are inherent to how LLMs work, and your response was to "ground them in facts". From what I can tell, this does not meaningfully change the original point the parent comment was making that the flaw is inherent; throwing a bunch of extra context at it to try to make it happen less often is useful, but it's still just a best-effort mitigation for the behavior, not somehow a way of literally changing the inherent nature of it.
• someothherguyy 1mo ago
  eventually the novelty wears off and depression kicks in
• tencentshill 1mo ago
  This is why it is so important to hoard offline models. They are already extremely capable, moreso than many realize.
• antman 1mo ago
  I was walking inside rooms in buddhist temples in western China today and ChatGPT knew and could discuss what each room had and explain the art society and legend.