top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 306 points 1 year ago (15 children)

Obviously it's higher. If it was any lower, they would've made a huge announcement out of it to prove they're better than the competition.

  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 33 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (8 children)

    I’m thinking otherwise. I think GPT5 is a much smaller model - with some fallback to previous models if required.

    Since it’s running on the exact same hardware with a mostly similar algorithm, using less energy would directly mean it’s a “less intense” model, which translates into an inferior quality in American Investor Language (AIL).

    And 2025’s investors doesn’t give a flying fuck about energy efficiency.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (5 replies)
    [+] 73 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)
    [–] 67 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Sam Altman looks like an SNL actor impersonating Sam Altman.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 62 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    It's safe to assume that any metric they don't disclose is quite damning to them. Plus, these guys don't really care about the environmental impact, or what us tree-hugging environmentalists think. I'm assuming the only group they are scared of upsetting right now is investors. The thing is, even if you don't care about the environment, the problem with LLMs is how poorly they scale.

    An important concept when evaluating how something scales is are marginal values, chiefly marginal utility and marginal expenses. Marginal utility is how much utility do you get if you get one more unit of whatever. Marginal expenses is how much it costs to get one more unit. And what the LLMs produce is the probably that a token, T, follows on prefix Q. So P(T|Q) (read: Probably of T, given Q). This is done for all known tokens, and then based on these probabilities, one token is chosen at random. This token is then appended to the prefix, and the process repeats, until the LLM produces a sequence which indicates that it's done talking.

    If we now imagine the best possible LLM, then the calculated value for P(T|Q) would be the actual value. However, it's worth noting that this already displays a limitation of LLMs. Namely even if we use this ideal LLM, we're just a few bad dice rolls away from saying something dumb, which then pollutes the context. And the larger we make the LLM, the closer its results get to the actual value. A potential way to measure this precision would be by subtracting P(T|Q) from P_calc(T|Q), and counting the leading zeroes, essentially counting the number of digits we got right. Now, the thing is that each additional digit only provides a tenth of the utility to than the digit before it. While the cost for additional digits goes up exponentially.

    So, exponentially decaying marginal utility meets exponentially growing marginal expenses. Which is really bad for companies that try to market LLMs.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    Well I mean also that they kinda suck, I feel like I spend more time debugging AI code than I get working code.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I only use it if I’m stuck even if the AI code is wrong it often pushes me in the right direction to find the correct solution for my problem. Like pair programming but a bit shitty.

    The best way to use these LLMs with coding is to never use the generated code directly and atomize your problem into smaller questions you ask to the LLM.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (5 replies)
  • [–] 45 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Sam Altman has gone into PR and hype overdrive lately. He is practically everywhere trying to distract the media from seeing the truth about LLM. GPT-5 has basically proved that we've hit a wall and the belief that LLM will just scale linearly with amount of training data is false. He knows AI bubble is bursting and he is scared.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago

    He's also already admitted that they're out of training data. If you've wondered why a lot more websites will run some sort of verification when you connect, it's because there's a desperate scramble to get more training data.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Bingo. If you routinely use LLM's/AI you've recently seen it first hand. ALL of them have become noticeably worse over the past few months. Even if simply using it as a basic tool, it's worse. Claude for all the praise it receives has also gotten worse. I've noticed it starting to forget context or constantly contradicting itself. even Claude Code.

    The release of GPT5 is proof in the pudding that a wall has been hit and the bubble is bursting. There's nothing left to train on and all the LLM's have been consuming each others waste as a result. I've talked about it on here several times already due to my work but companies are also seeing this. They're scrambling to undo the fuck up of using AI to build their stuff, None of what they used it to build scales. None of it. And you go on Linkedin and see all the techbros desperately trying to hype the mounds of shit that remain.

    I don't know what's next for AI but this current generation of it is dying. It didn't work.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 45 points 1 year ago (3 children)
    load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 42 points 1 year ago (19 children)

    I have to test it with Copilot for work. So far, in my experience its "enhanced capabilities" mostly involve doing things I didn't ask it to do extremely quickly. For example, it massively fucked up the CSS in an experimental project when I instructed it to extract a React element into its own file.

    That's literally all I wanted it to do, yet it took it upon itself to make all sorts of changes to styling for the entire application. I ended up reverting all of its changes and extracting the element myself.

    Suffice to say, I will not be recommending GPT 5 going forward.

  • source
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 28 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Sounds like you forgot to instruct it to do a good job.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    "If you do anything else then what i asked your mother dies"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    That's my problem with "AI" in general. It's seemingly impossible to "engineer" a complete piece of software when using LLMs in any capacity that isn't editing a line or two inside singular functions. Too many times I've asked GPT/Gemini to make a small change to a file and had to revert the request because it'd take it upon itself to re-engineer the architecture of my entire application.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • load more comments (11 replies)
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago

    We moved to m365 and were encouraged to try new elements. I gave copilot an excel sheet, told it to add 5% to each percent in column B and not to go over 100%. It spat out jumbled up data all reading 6000%.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 32 points 1 year ago

    It's the same tech. It would have to be bigger or chew through "reasoning" tokens to beat benchmarks. So yeah, of course it is.

  • source
  • [–] 27 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    When will genAI be so good, it'll solve its own energy crisis?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 24 points 1 year ago

    If anyone has ever wondered what it would look like if tech giants went all in on "brute force" programming, this is it. This is what it looks like.

  • source
  • [–] 24 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    intense electricity demands, and WATER for cooling.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • load more comments (7 replies)
    [–] 20 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Photographer1: Sam, could you give us a goofier face?

    *click* *click*

    Photographer2: Goofier!!

    *click* *click* *click* *click*

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago

    They literally don't know. "GPT-5" is several models, with a model gating in front to choose which model to use depending on how "hard" it thinks the question is. They've already been tweaking the front-end to change how it cuts over. They've definitely going to keep changing it.

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    So like, is this whole AI bubble being funded directly by the fossil fuel industry or something? Because the AI training and the instantaneous global adoption of them is using energy like it's going out of style. Which fossil fuels actually are (going out of style, and being used to power these data centers). Could there be a link? Gotta find a way to burn all the rest of the oil and gas we can get out of the ground before laws make it illegal. Makes sense, in their traditional who gives a fuck about the climate and environment sort of way, doesn't it?

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 11 points 1 year ago

    When you want to create the shiniest honeypot, you need high power consumption.

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    is there any picture of the guy without his hand up like that?

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [+] 10 points 1 year ago
    [removed by mod]
  • source
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    Pump it Sammy, pump it harder!!

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›