This is the first I have heard of this in particular. Do you know of any article or source for more on the efforts to train GPT 5 and the decision to call it GPT 4o?
...and then gets hit deadpan with the good old "Source?", like it's some sort of gotcha.
I think people have started to confuse "making logical conclusions without perfect info" with "misinformation"
-
Before certain people start acting like this is advocating for misinformation (which would be an incredible irony...) it's not.
I'm saying if you disagree with what someone supposits, just state so directly. Don't wrap it in a disingenous query for a source.
There is no way to deduce by intuition alone that GPT-5 == GPT-4o. So either that person has some information the rest of us aren't privy to, or it's an opinion phrased as a fact. In either case, it deserves clarification.
Looking at the benchmarks it was also very expected in my opinion. Sure, the absolute results are/were sky high, but results relative to the previous gen were not exponential now, they were comparatively smaller than between 2 and 3, or 3 and 4. So I'm guessing that they have invested and worked for 2023-2024 on a brand new model, and branded it according to the model results.
The problem is once you believe their fact is wrong, just say "I think you're wrong <insert rest of comment>". Innocently asking for a source as if you're still on the fence is just performative and leads to these conversations where both sides just end up talking past each other:
A source for one underpinning of the incorrect fact comes up, then "well but that only proves X part of it, can you prove Y" and so on.
tl;dr I just find the quality of discourse is much higher when people are direct.
Well this certainly is a lot of work to make a mountain out of a mole hill, and I'm not sure it increases the quality of discussion either.
In any case, I think saying bold shit followed up with "it's speculation, but it's OBVIOUS speculation" is worth asking for some evidence. Obvious speculation implies it's sourced from something other than personal gut feeling.
To echo a sibling comment:
> Every time someone says their speculation is "obvious" it rings every possible alarm bell for someone who has completely lost grasp of the ability to distinguish between facts and speculation.
My point is simply that is we can skip the passive aggressiveness and just say "can you give me some more evidence that would help me reach the same conclusions you've reached".
Otherwise you're not actually asking for a source, you're just saying "I disagree" in a very roundabout way.
Critical thinking ? Lol it's just blind speculation.
You don't do this passive aggressive "source???" thing.
It's a bit like starting a Slack conversation with "Hi?": we all know you have a secondary objective, but now you're inserting an extra turn of phrase into the mix
To me, OP's speculation reads as obvious nonsense but that might not be the case for everybody. Asking for sources or such to what is entirely speculation is perfectly valid and personally, that comment does not ring as passive aggressive to me but maybe it's just me.
Just because someone doesn't know enough to refute the reasoning doesn't mean they must take whatever they read at face value.
If anything just breezily asking for a source would imply to people who don't know better that this is a rather even keeled take and just needs some more evidence on top. "I disagree and here's why" nips that in the bud directly.
I think the hanging point seems to be that you found the comment passive aggressive but i genuinely didn't.
> How is "I disagree" any more direct than "I've not heard anything like this.
But then you go on to say:
> Moreover who's to say this person even disagrees? Personally i don't always ask for them because of a disagreement.
If you don't see how just disagreeing with someone is more direct than rhetorically asking for sources... we might just have to agree to disagree :)
And while I fully agree there absolutely is such a thing as smarmy commenters asking for sources in cases where it's misunderstanding something fundamental about the conversation (e.g. "Shakespeare is good", "oh really? source?!") or frivolous requests for factual information familiar to everyone ("global temperatures are rising? Source!?"), I don't know how someone could read this subthread and feel that my question falls into either of those categories.
And to use this of all things as a moment to die on the hill of advocating for fuzzy boundaries between speculation and fact, which absolutely is something that facilitates misinformation, and to be angry that such a thing would be interpreted as a favorable attitude toward misinformation, is completely baffling.
Meanwhile, aeronautics experts whose job it is to know about this have created an entire lexicon for the various perceptual illusions we experience relating to flight and airborne objects, precisely because it involves conditions where our intuitions fail. Many of them have to do with inability to orient depth, distance, or motion for lights at night.
Every time someone says their speculation is "obvious" it rings every possible alarm bell for someone who has completely lost grasp of the ability to distinguish between facts and speculation.
The road to misinformation is paved with overconfident declarations of the form: "it's so obvious, who needs sources!"
4o was all about compute optimization.