Hacker News Reader

Comment by saulpw | Hacker News Reader

That sounds 10% better, not 10x better. That's close enough to 'peaked'.

Agreed. Sam Altman definitely over-hyped GPT-5. It's not so much more capable that it deserves a major version number bump.

I still think it's a solid achievement, but weirdly positioned. It's their new-poverty spec model, available to everyone, and is likely not too large.

It's decently good at coding, and math, beating current SOTA of Opus 4.1 by a small margin, while being much cheaper and faster to run, hinting at likely a much smaller model.

However it's no better at trivia or writing emails or essays, which is what regular people who use ChatGPT through the website actually care about, making this launch come off as awkward.

Surely a major version bump says more about the internals than the capabilities

I see your point from a software engineering perspective but unfortuately that's not how the public sees it. The common perception is that we are making leaps towards AGI. I never thought AGI was close so I'm not disappointed, but a lot of people seem to be. On the other hand, I've seen comments like "I guess my fears of a destructive super-intelligence were over-blown."

They gonna release new models like apple releases iphones, same stuff little tweaks and improvements.

People seem to make this exact comment on here at every gpt release. I wonder what gpt we ought to actually be on? 1.4.6?

3.something.

They make "this exact comment on here at every gpt release" because every GPT release is touted as revolutionary and it's increasinly a smaller bump.

4 was definitely way better

In retrospect I would have named it as follows:

GPT-4 -> GPT-4 Home

GPT-5 -> GPT-4 Enterprise

Because my impression after using GPT-5 that it is designed to satisfy the needs of Microsoft mainly. Microsoft has no interest in making AI therapists or AI companions, probably because of the legal liability. Also, that's outside their core business.

Yep right now I’m not even sure I’d say it’s 10% better (at things I use it for). Feels overhyped based on the launch and what every influencer covered in their review (maybe obviously). Maybe it will get better as they sort out routing and other kinks. Right now feels like big gap between marketing and reality.

By definition, if something is still getting 10% better each year it hasn’t yet peaked. Not even close.

Getting 10% better over this last year compared to, say, 100% and 50% and 25% better the 4-5 years before?

I'd say that points to it being very close to peaked.

Nobody said anything about a steady 10% year-over-year being the case forever...

kinda how theoretical physics peaked in 1878, as predicted by Philipp von Jolly? why does everyone feel the urge to extrapolate a vibe-based metric based on three points? isn't scientific/technological progress inherently unpredictable anyway

No, more like how theoretical physics peaked in 1960s.

>why does everyone feel the urge to extrapolate a vibe-based metric based on three points?

Because marketers of AI extrapolate even worse to hype it, and a counter-correction is needed...

I meant that we could be in the 19th century stage, not that we necessarily are

> marketers of AI

why would I ever consider their opinion to be valuable?

It’s just extrapolating the asymptote man.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com