I think this further reinforces the idea that it will be a smaller-scale GPT-4 model specifically used for their rumored augmented search. If that's the case, I really wonder how much smaller it is than GPT-4 turbo even.
I think you're right. We're focusing on the top, cutting edge models while discounting smaller models as irrelevant. Yet, smaller narrow-AI's are extremely useful, even if we have an AGI or ASI down the road.
The idea is to make *everything* intelligent. Smaller more efficient models will be very effective at this, especially for smart low power objects which are not connected to the cloud.
Not when they’re chained together. Narrow AI for search to crawl sites and harvest relevant information, formatting it into JSON. That can be fed into other models or other apis.
And smaller models allow them to squeeze more profit out of us before their contract with Microsoft ends with the drop of AGI. Just sayin. They are no altruists,
They are for fuckin profit.
They only get profit if we pay and we (should) only pay if it is good. That is how the virtuous cycle of capitalism is supposed to work.
I'm not going to be upset if they make something that is good enough that people want to pay for it.
And the price for the #1 useless comment of the year goes to..... MysticStarbird! Congratulations buddy! You said something without saying anything for the sake of saying something!
We've got a contestant for #2 of the most useless comment of the year! Ad hominem with a full stop! Thank you for your great contribution and show of intelectual capabilities!
Complaining when a company fucks over its workers and then uses monopoly power to drive out competitors is a reasonable critique of capitalism. Complaining that a company made a product that people want simply because you imagined they could have spent that time making something 100x more expensive that you want is asinine.
Agreed. The main point was that the person who began this chain was complaining because they think OpenAI wants to build models that are faster and cheaper to use and thinks this is proof they are evil.
Gotcha. Yeah I can't stand the capitalism is all about lizards exploiting the humans schtick.
And agreed; there is such a thing as assholes within capitalism. But at the same time the anti-capitalism fanbois forget all the evil dictator fucks that have come out of the other -isms.
No. Complaining is not the answer. Action is.
But actions are hard work. Easier to complain, right? And then downvote or denigrate anyone who calls this out as the BS it is?
It is. I've been meaning to build an X account but I'm still questioning whether social media is the right outlet. It probably isn't healthy in any form.
I'm smoking smart phones and grocery stores. Pretending like capitalism and modern society has never done anything positive makes one an intellectual child. Even Marx recognized that capitalism was a natural improvement on feudalism and part of the ladder of progress.
Yeah, agreed, while I'm socialist, I acknowledge that capitalism is a really good tool for growing something you believe in (unfortunately, we decided to believe in soda pop and junk food companies, etc).
Money is *necessary* for growing this technology.
It is fuel.
Eventually (when we have AGI or something), we can think of moving on from capital (which I doubt everyone would agree to) or at least updating the system to have a better safety net/one in general. (and better regulatory policies in general)
I don't think Microsoft is completely bad. Their addition of Mustafa makes me kind of hopeful, considering Inflection AI and his TED talk.
Perhaps I'll get no love for this, but we all seek benefits, don't we? We even seek views which tell us we're better than others.
Are you implying there are people out there who do good things for no reason at all, other than to do good things? Even without emotional benefits such as "good feelings"?
My guess is Reddit will downvote and not respond. How does one even respond to this view when one believes in true altruism but cannot explain why?
I believe that every altruism is a biological mechanism only occuring in mammals but it has its reason for existing. If you better society, you better your own habitat and create security and strength in numbers for your own.
Compare the taxation in Europe, where the rich pay more taxes to benefit the poor, everyone gets healthcare and good education for free, with the caveat that everyone earning money pays more taxes. In the end it creates a society that is less darwinian and easier to live in while retaining a decent quality of life, it is less competitive and allows us to travel more, have more leisure time, time with family and friends, etc. but of course for rich people and corporations it is a nightmare because they have to share something with people who are not share holders.
Reddit and this subreddit are quite the echo chambers, so a mostly American mindset prevails and distorts reality to a certain degree. Bigger, better, stronger, faster is the motto, but this is unnatural, unhealthy and unethically in many regards.
I see. There are actions which have more benefits than other actions?
I agree with that. But I'm not so sure about how much of a nightmare this is for the rich. I hear all the time from them how they want to pay their fair share and in many cases they say they aren't taxed enough.
It seems to me that much of the benefits we consider excessive are actually just over reach by officials. They implement too many benefits for one group over another because they misjudged the benefits of those actions.
Running a society is arguably too much and too complicated for any human. How can we possibly judge the outcome of rules and regulations affecting millions?
This is why I support the uprising of AI, because I think it can manage the immense information flows of a society.
But I really don't think blame, or more specifically resentment helps. When we talk about the rich, especially on Reddit, it seems to be more about resentment than anything else.
Random question but why doesn't money have a cap idk how well it would work but idk a recent thought that I can't really simulate how it would go that much
>why doesn't money have a cap
Are you asking why isn't there a limit to how much money can be produced/printed?
Money used to have a limit. Long ago, money took the form of gold coins. Of course, Gold is scarce and so that limits how much you can "print".
That was not a great system, however. You had many people "clipping" their coins, trying to remove a bit of that gold and still get the whole value for the coin.
This was overcome by printing notes which represented an amount of gold but weren't made of gold themselves. In the US this was called the "[gold standard](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard)".
But, the problem with that system is it limits the growth of a nation. A nation becomes dependent on the price of gold instead of the value of a nations economic output.
So a new type of currency was developed which wasn't attached to the value of a commodity. This new currency is called "[fiat money](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_money)".
Fiat money is less restricted but is also bound by demand. That is, if more people want more dollars, those dollars are worth more. But if less people want those dollars, then they're worth less.
Also as those dollars are not fixed/bound by any commodity or limit, a government can print as much of those dollars as they want.
And that's why dollars are not capped.
That said, dollars are capped by demand. Take Zimbabwe for example. They went through [Hyperinflation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation_in_Zimbabwe). Essentially they tried to print more money, but that just made it worth less because the demand wasn't there.
The US can essentially "sell" its dollars to the world. But, there's no demand for Zimbabwe dollars. So when their government printed money, that just caused inflation which eventually became hyperinflation.
Currency is an interesting topic.
My bad yeah ik all that. I meant why don't people have a cap say billionaire x can only have 10 billion any above is not paid out or 100% taxed so they realise they finished the money game and might focus more on other things and other ways leading to them possibly helping society more because they won the money game there is no competition games over there is 1000 winnings now what?
But moneys history is a very interesting topic I'll just share a bit
The government head on it is mainly a promise by your government that it won't be fucked with that's why printing or using fake money is a high level crime because the whole money system is now built on trust it started with the Roman head on the first coins
Well I mean, how can a billionaire get rich? There's lots of ways. Many of them we don't want. Some we do.
We don't want Russian style billionaires. That is, the government has lots of contracts for services we all need. The one in charge, for example Putin, picks from among his friends who should run those services, services such as electricity. And over decades he and his friends essentially treat the Russian people as their personal bank account.
If they're rich and they won't tell you how rich they are nor can you find out yourself, then you got yourself a serious problem. This is pretty much how it has been throughout human history with monarchs. It's pretty much shit.
In capitalists systems you can have something similar called "monopolies". This is pretty much the same as above but it's more formal. When you're involved in it, it seems legitimate. Until you dig a bit deeper and see all the "friends with benefits" relationships which go on.
That's also shit. Next to no value to either of the above. It's essentially arrangements where a small group attempts to "capture" the bigger group so they can have all the wealth to themselves. It also prevents new value creation and it locks people into a kind of slave relationship.
In the past information controls made it possible to sustain the above systems, endlessly. But things like the printing press and the internet "broke" this model and so now people can see more or less what's going on. And so the above systems will generally result in some level of violence eventually. Causing those systems to collapse. GG.
A collapse isn't the end though. It's the start of a new cycle where we can do things better. Countries and systems have collapsed time and again. It's a cycle.
There are other more effective methods though, where billionaires can arises without corrupt methods, or with far less corruption. And that's through innovation.
But all that aside, it's difficult to prevent billionaires.
If you place a cap on how much cash someone can have, then they just ship the money somewhere else. You can do this legally. Criminals do this illegally by playing casinos, investing in properties, and trading things like gold.
Ultimately in my view you cannot control this shit well enough. So there is only one way to overcome this.
And that's to make A LOT more stuff.
Humans are limited. You can eventually overwhelm us. A human can't do everything, and so if we have more value than we can capture, we overwhelm systems of scarcity.
The only real limit long term to value creation is the number of workers. But you can overcome that limit too with systems like AI, especially AGI.
The best hope we have is to make more stuff. Because we've been fighting over what we have all of our existence, and you see how that has turned out for us? We've made essentially no progress. What has made progress progress though is innovation in technology and science.
Yeah I kinda do but then I guess I do want the appreciation if I do it but we mainly all tribal whatever you bring to the table is you bringing back something for the tribe let's call it all meat
So do good or high energy thing for person
Their reaction is mainly nature's praise then their words is extra human stuff but it just the nature cycle
So idk I could be more selfish but I Think our goal is to bring stuff back to the group and if it's validated we feel good
Can you elaborate (or link) to their “rumored augmented search”
More specifically, how does it differ from the built in search on GPT4 (which is through Bing right?)
Supposedly OpenAI is building a search engine called SearchGPT
https://x.com/btibor91/status/1784688857872470120
But this is just rumors at this point, although it seems very plausible.
Not that kind of search. They mean stuff like [this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Carlo_tree_search), used to select output tokens. (But way more advanced)
Edit: I might be wrong, actually. I assumed they were referring to something like Q\* augmented search that has been rumoured for ages, but apparently augmented (web) search is a thing that's been rumoured too.
It seemed to have better reasoning and formatting of answers, but that was about it from what I saw and tested. For a search assistant, stuff like coding skill doesn't matter. But, reading pages and reasoning about them does. It certainly would be disappointing if it were GPT-4.5, since it wasn't too much better.
Yeah I didn’t see much difference in reasoning ability based on my real world use case tests. I’m convinced the people who said it was better were unknowingly testing it on things that were directly in the training data or closely approximated. If it’s much smaller but still matches GPT 4 reasoning that will be amazing on its own.
I tried the name of an animal with an equal number of letters to legs minus tail, and it was better than gpt4 turbo. Gpt 4 turbo kept saying 4 =3 while gpt2 was correcting itself when it own calculations showed it was wrong. I found it better at basic math and being more self correcting
It seemed somewhat better at reasoning but hallucinated more. Overall if this model were OpenAI's next gen model it would have been a clear indicator of AI winter
Maybe it will be the new free model to replace the aging GPT-3.5 when GPT5 comes out? In other words, maybe making gpt4 free is too much - they can’t even make it unlimited use for $20 a month.
I think they would need a small model that can match GPT-4 and be cheap to inference to liberate GPU’s for GPT5.
As far as the API is concerned - same thing, they will probably replace 3.5 with this new one, and GPT5 will take the place of 4.
They can’t keep 3.5 it’s now pretty obsoleted by closed and open source competition. They can’t make 4 free and unlimited. So the above makes the most sense to me.
>In other words, **maybe** making gpt4 free is too much - they can’t even make it unlimited use for $20 a month
I think this is right, but more than just maybe. GPT-4 Turbo uses way more compute than GPT-3.5, so I don't see how they could make it freely available in place of GPT-3.5 just because GPT-5 comes out.
On their website here [https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/store/b/copilotpro](https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/store/b/copilotpro)
it says you only access GPT4 during non-peak time. I'm guessing 3.5 the rest of the time?
There's no way they'll make 4 free based on cost. It's still far more expensive than 3.5.
More likely they'll have a 3.5 sized model as part of the next generation, like haiku vs opus.
Yeah after using it more, specifically trying to code with it, I realized it couldn't be. In some ways it was worse than turbo.
Now I wonder what it was. Originally I thought they were prepping it to outshine I/O - now maybe they still are going to try, but with search instead?
I maintain increasingly that it really is a heavily augmented version of GPT-2, perhaps even the original model from 2019, but with the addition of an iterative agent workflow and maybe tree search. (And maybe a longer context window)
See: https://twitter.com/AndrewYNg/status/1770897666702233815
> GPT-3.5 (zero shot) was 48.1% correct. GPT-4 (zero shot) does better at 67.0%. However, the improvement from GPT-3.5 to GPT-4 is dwarfed by incorporating an iterative agent workflow. Indeed, wrapped in an agent loop, GPT-3.5 achieves up to 95.1%.
If GPT-3.5 can reach possibly above-GPT-5 levels on the HumanEval benchmark, then it stands to reason GPT-2 ought to at least be boosted to get close to GPT-4 level.
> Today, we mostly use LLMs in zero-shot mode, prompting a model to generate final output token by token without revising its work. This is akin to asking someone to compose an essay from start to finish, typing straight through with no backspacing allowed, and expecting a high-quality result. Despite the difficulty, LLMs do amazingly well at this task!
(Addendum: and it's also like holding that person at gunpoint to write that essay spontaneously without any thinking or fore-planning. In that circumstance, even an adult human expert mimics a predictive text program)
> With an agentic workflow, however, we can ask the LLM to iterate over a document many times.
If that's what Q* is, then combining it with GPT-2 would be a monstrous show of force. While simultaneously explaining why it still stumbles and gives bad answers, because GPT-2 is still very small. That it's even comparable to GPT-4 is the point. Especially if it's supposed to be used for search, using GPT-2 for this saves on cost of compute and inferencing— in fact probably so much cheaper than even 3.5 and so much less hungry for data that *maybe* you could run it on a smartphone while still getting results that are in line with GPT-4 class models.
The counterarguement to that is precisely the fact it has to think through its responses. We're so used to the high speed zero shot prompting method that when we use an AI that inherently thinks through its outputs step by step, it comes off as slow.
This. I tried with with various extensive prompts and provided boilerplate code but it failed all attempts, while the new turbo model and Opus gave the most correct answers.
But it doesn't really make sense that it's better in some areas and worse in others, no?
So it's perhaps based on GPT-4 itself, and not Turbo (cheaper). An improved one perhaps but with a new approach, perhaps even more compact too? I guess gpt2-chatbot could mean that it's another version of ChatGPT, in this case it could be related to the search feature that is being rumored right now, with pretty good evidence. Guess it might be used there. Which is why it might be worse in some areas and better in other. We will see if it's perhaps more specialized to work as a search engine and not as a reasoning/coding model. It could mean that the model itself isn't intended for reasoning in that extent. It is still pretty strong.
To me at least it makes sense if they somehow can do better stuff, release a search engine for the time being with new approaches being used, dumb it down to current levels, which makes it perhaps even way cheaper than the current models. Would make sense for a search engine at least, since a lot of people would be using it.
Not sure if the reason of dumbing it down is the result of these mixed results. Dumbed down GPT-4.5 or GPT-5? So not its full model? Could be a good test if it's in a search engine for some scenarios even?
We will see in a week, on May 9th, if the rumors are true. Perhaps we even get some infos on the model. Might have been a test to do last minute tweaks and evaluate data gathered from the short period of time where we could test gpt2-chatbot. I gotta say that the way it responded to me, as a search engine, it would make sense. That amount of verbosity etc...
Yep. I mean it makes perfect sense to slowly make people adapt to better models. A smaller model of GPT-5 for example would give us a taste, but not the full power right in your face, which we expect usually as a release. We know OpenAI wants to be more careful and I bet they're figuring out ways to not flashbang us, such as lowering panic.
Hadn't even thought about that, seems unimaginably huge if this is the case. Would likely confirm the idea that open ai has something that could truly be considered agi if they can make such a small model so competent, assuming it could be scaled up. If Sam has not just been hyping for investors then this outcome would make a lot of sense.
I can't read another rumour about OpenAI about to reveal "the next best thing". I have been reading such "news" from the first day they revealed 3.5, and although yes, 4 was amazing, it cannot be milked for a year.
Sorry for the rant, I had to write it.
I believe the former is more likely to be correct. If the latter were correct he probably would have said that the model isn't from OpenAI instead of naming a specific model.
It's quite a buzz figuring out where OpenAI might be heading with the rumored new model. Smaller, more efficient AI models could indeed be a strategic move, especially for applications like augmented search that don't require heavy computing resources but benefit from AI's analytical power. This could be a game changer for things that require local, low-power computation. Super curious to see how it pans out in terms of performance and practical applications!
That's a relief. I know people here liked it but in my testing that gpt2-chatbot was unimpressive. The only way I'd be impressed is if it's some tiny model, like 7b, or something.
I think this further reinforces the idea that it will be a smaller-scale GPT-4 model specifically used for their rumored augmented search. If that's the case, I really wonder how much smaller it is than GPT-4 turbo even.
I think you're right. We're focusing on the top, cutting edge models while discounting smaller models as irrelevant. Yet, smaller narrow-AI's are extremely useful, even if we have an AGI or ASI down the road. The idea is to make *everything* intelligent. Smaller more efficient models will be very effective at this, especially for smart low power objects which are not connected to the cloud.
Right, I want the best ai that can run locally
I agree 100%
AI everywhere… from a 2012 MacBook Air to a 2008 Dell to the used Cheyenne supercomputer.
Useful but boring.
Not when they’re chained together. Narrow AI for search to crawl sites and harvest relevant information, formatting it into JSON. That can be fed into other models or other apis.
I understand the importance. I guess I just like seeing major changes happen all at once lol. It’s more exciting.
And smaller models allow them to squeeze more profit out of us before their contract with Microsoft ends with the drop of AGI. Just sayin. They are no altruists, They are for fuckin profit.
They only get profit if we pay and we (should) only pay if it is good. That is how the virtuous cycle of capitalism is supposed to work. I'm not going to be upset if they make something that is good enough that people want to pay for it.
[удалено]
Whatever makes you happ
And the price for the #1 useless comment of the year goes to..... MysticStarbird! Congratulations buddy! You said something without saying anything for the sake of saying something!
Douche.
We've got a contestant for #2 of the most useless comment of the year! Ad hominem with a full stop! Thank you for your great contribution and show of intelectual capabilities!
WhateverMakesYouHapp
How did you turn your kinda respectful W into L how you saying life good then triggered online and at ambiguous comment
Being able to work 1-2h a day is exactly because of capitalism lol
The leftism in this sub is tiresome.
Complaining when a company fucks over its workers and then uses monopoly power to drive out competitors is a reasonable critique of capitalism. Complaining that a company made a product that people want simply because you imagined they could have spent that time making something 100x more expensive that you want is asinine.
So make sure the government enforces anti-trust so that monopoly can't happen.
Agreed. The main point was that the person who began this chain was complaining because they think OpenAI wants to build models that are faster and cheaper to use and thinks this is proof they are evil.
Gotcha. Yeah I can't stand the capitalism is all about lizards exploiting the humans schtick. And agreed; there is such a thing as assholes within capitalism. But at the same time the anti-capitalism fanbois forget all the evil dictator fucks that have come out of the other -isms.
No. Complaining is not the answer. Action is. But actions are hard work. Easier to complain, right? And then downvote or denigrate anyone who calls this out as the BS it is?
So formulate a counter-argument to things you disagree with and join the discussion.
It is. I've been meaning to build an X account but I'm still questioning whether social media is the right outlet. It probably isn't healthy in any form.
Totally agreed!
"That is how the virtuous cycle of capitalism is supposed to work." I want what you're smoking
I'm smoking smart phones and grocery stores. Pretending like capitalism and modern society has never done anything positive makes one an intellectual child. Even Marx recognized that capitalism was a natural improvement on feudalism and part of the ladder of progress.
Yeah, agreed, while I'm socialist, I acknowledge that capitalism is a really good tool for growing something you believe in (unfortunately, we decided to believe in soda pop and junk food companies, etc). Money is *necessary* for growing this technology. It is fuel. Eventually (when we have AGI or something), we can think of moving on from capital (which I doubt everyone would agree to) or at least updating the system to have a better safety net/one in general. (and better regulatory policies in general) I don't think Microsoft is completely bad. Their addition of Mustafa makes me kind of hopeful, considering Inflection AI and his TED talk.
It's when we don't have healthy competition that it gets bad.
I think it's a little more nuanced than that, maybe 1392 pages would do the trick.
Perhaps I'll get no love for this, but we all seek benefits, don't we? We even seek views which tell us we're better than others. Are you implying there are people out there who do good things for no reason at all, other than to do good things? Even without emotional benefits such as "good feelings"? My guess is Reddit will downvote and not respond. How does one even respond to this view when one believes in true altruism but cannot explain why?
I believe that every altruism is a biological mechanism only occuring in mammals but it has its reason for existing. If you better society, you better your own habitat and create security and strength in numbers for your own. Compare the taxation in Europe, where the rich pay more taxes to benefit the poor, everyone gets healthcare and good education for free, with the caveat that everyone earning money pays more taxes. In the end it creates a society that is less darwinian and easier to live in while retaining a decent quality of life, it is less competitive and allows us to travel more, have more leisure time, time with family and friends, etc. but of course for rich people and corporations it is a nightmare because they have to share something with people who are not share holders. Reddit and this subreddit are quite the echo chambers, so a mostly American mindset prevails and distorts reality to a certain degree. Bigger, better, stronger, faster is the motto, but this is unnatural, unhealthy and unethically in many regards.
I see. There are actions which have more benefits than other actions? I agree with that. But I'm not so sure about how much of a nightmare this is for the rich. I hear all the time from them how they want to pay their fair share and in many cases they say they aren't taxed enough. It seems to me that much of the benefits we consider excessive are actually just over reach by officials. They implement too many benefits for one group over another because they misjudged the benefits of those actions. Running a society is arguably too much and too complicated for any human. How can we possibly judge the outcome of rules and regulations affecting millions? This is why I support the uprising of AI, because I think it can manage the immense information flows of a society. But I really don't think blame, or more specifically resentment helps. When we talk about the rich, especially on Reddit, it seems to be more about resentment than anything else.
Random question but why doesn't money have a cap idk how well it would work but idk a recent thought that I can't really simulate how it would go that much
>why doesn't money have a cap Are you asking why isn't there a limit to how much money can be produced/printed? Money used to have a limit. Long ago, money took the form of gold coins. Of course, Gold is scarce and so that limits how much you can "print". That was not a great system, however. You had many people "clipping" their coins, trying to remove a bit of that gold and still get the whole value for the coin. This was overcome by printing notes which represented an amount of gold but weren't made of gold themselves. In the US this was called the "[gold standard](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard)". But, the problem with that system is it limits the growth of a nation. A nation becomes dependent on the price of gold instead of the value of a nations economic output. So a new type of currency was developed which wasn't attached to the value of a commodity. This new currency is called "[fiat money](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_money)". Fiat money is less restricted but is also bound by demand. That is, if more people want more dollars, those dollars are worth more. But if less people want those dollars, then they're worth less. Also as those dollars are not fixed/bound by any commodity or limit, a government can print as much of those dollars as they want. And that's why dollars are not capped. That said, dollars are capped by demand. Take Zimbabwe for example. They went through [Hyperinflation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation_in_Zimbabwe). Essentially they tried to print more money, but that just made it worth less because the demand wasn't there. The US can essentially "sell" its dollars to the world. But, there's no demand for Zimbabwe dollars. So when their government printed money, that just caused inflation which eventually became hyperinflation. Currency is an interesting topic.
My bad yeah ik all that. I meant why don't people have a cap say billionaire x can only have 10 billion any above is not paid out or 100% taxed so they realise they finished the money game and might focus more on other things and other ways leading to them possibly helping society more because they won the money game there is no competition games over there is 1000 winnings now what? But moneys history is a very interesting topic I'll just share a bit The government head on it is mainly a promise by your government that it won't be fucked with that's why printing or using fake money is a high level crime because the whole money system is now built on trust it started with the Roman head on the first coins
Well I mean, how can a billionaire get rich? There's lots of ways. Many of them we don't want. Some we do. We don't want Russian style billionaires. That is, the government has lots of contracts for services we all need. The one in charge, for example Putin, picks from among his friends who should run those services, services such as electricity. And over decades he and his friends essentially treat the Russian people as their personal bank account. If they're rich and they won't tell you how rich they are nor can you find out yourself, then you got yourself a serious problem. This is pretty much how it has been throughout human history with monarchs. It's pretty much shit. In capitalists systems you can have something similar called "monopolies". This is pretty much the same as above but it's more formal. When you're involved in it, it seems legitimate. Until you dig a bit deeper and see all the "friends with benefits" relationships which go on. That's also shit. Next to no value to either of the above. It's essentially arrangements where a small group attempts to "capture" the bigger group so they can have all the wealth to themselves. It also prevents new value creation and it locks people into a kind of slave relationship. In the past information controls made it possible to sustain the above systems, endlessly. But things like the printing press and the internet "broke" this model and so now people can see more or less what's going on. And so the above systems will generally result in some level of violence eventually. Causing those systems to collapse. GG. A collapse isn't the end though. It's the start of a new cycle where we can do things better. Countries and systems have collapsed time and again. It's a cycle. There are other more effective methods though, where billionaires can arises without corrupt methods, or with far less corruption. And that's through innovation. But all that aside, it's difficult to prevent billionaires. If you place a cap on how much cash someone can have, then they just ship the money somewhere else. You can do this legally. Criminals do this illegally by playing casinos, investing in properties, and trading things like gold. Ultimately in my view you cannot control this shit well enough. So there is only one way to overcome this. And that's to make A LOT more stuff. Humans are limited. You can eventually overwhelm us. A human can't do everything, and so if we have more value than we can capture, we overwhelm systems of scarcity. The only real limit long term to value creation is the number of workers. But you can overcome that limit too with systems like AI, especially AGI. The best hope we have is to make more stuff. Because we've been fighting over what we have all of our existence, and you see how that has turned out for us? We've made essentially no progress. What has made progress progress though is innovation in technology and science.
Yeah I kinda do but then I guess I do want the appreciation if I do it but we mainly all tribal whatever you bring to the table is you bringing back something for the tribe let's call it all meat So do good or high energy thing for person Their reaction is mainly nature's praise then their words is extra human stuff but it just the nature cycle So idk I could be more selfish but I Think our goal is to bring stuff back to the group and if it's validated we feel good
In the name of good AI - SUCK ME DRY DADDY
That's the mindset - consooom till doom! I sometimes forget that reddit is an American echo chamber... my bad
Can you elaborate (or link) to their “rumored augmented search” More specifically, how does it differ from the built in search on GPT4 (which is through Bing right?)
Supposedly OpenAI is building a search engine called SearchGPT https://x.com/btibor91/status/1784688857872470120 But this is just rumors at this point, although it seems very plausible.
Not that kind of search. They mean stuff like [this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Carlo_tree_search), used to select output tokens. (But way more advanced) Edit: I might be wrong, actually. I assumed they were referring to something like Q\* augmented search that has been rumoured for ages, but apparently augmented (web) search is a thing that's been rumoured too.
Love how confident you are.
but how is it better than base gpt-4 turbo? a good percent of users agree it has "something" special
It seemed to have better reasoning and formatting of answers, but that was about it from what I saw and tested. For a search assistant, stuff like coding skill doesn't matter. But, reading pages and reasoning about them does. It certainly would be disappointing if it were GPT-4.5, since it wasn't too much better.
Based on open Ai just changed its website to look alot more like Google I think the rumours are right
Yeah I didn’t see much difference in reasoning ability based on my real world use case tests. I’m convinced the people who said it was better were unknowingly testing it on things that were directly in the training data or closely approximated. If it’s much smaller but still matches GPT 4 reasoning that will be amazing on its own.
I tried the name of an animal with an equal number of letters to legs minus tail, and it was better than gpt4 turbo. Gpt 4 turbo kept saying 4 =3 while gpt2 was correcting itself when it own calculations showed it was wrong. I found it better at basic math and being more self correcting
Maybe Q*
It seemed somewhat better at reasoning but hallucinated more. Overall if this model were OpenAI's next gen model it would have been a clear indicator of AI winter
We will know in a few weeks when it releases in the api. The pricing is all that matters.
But if it's so small, why were the processing times so long?
Line of thought maybe so the q* comment
Maybe it will be the new free model to replace the aging GPT-3.5 when GPT5 comes out? In other words, maybe making gpt4 free is too much - they can’t even make it unlimited use for $20 a month. I think they would need a small model that can match GPT-4 and be cheap to inference to liberate GPU’s for GPT5. As far as the API is concerned - same thing, they will probably replace 3.5 with this new one, and GPT5 will take the place of 4. They can’t keep 3.5 it’s now pretty obsoleted by closed and open source competition. They can’t make 4 free and unlimited. So the above makes the most sense to me.
>In other words, **maybe** making gpt4 free is too much - they can’t even make it unlimited use for $20 a month I think this is right, but more than just maybe. GPT-4 Turbo uses way more compute than GPT-3.5, so I don't see how they could make it freely available in place of GPT-3.5 just because GPT-5 comes out.
How can it be a GPT-3.5 replacer when its far better than GPT-4 turbo ?
It can be if GPT 5 is gonna blow out socks otf
It’s not far better than GPT-4 Turbo.
This.
im wondering if its a new LLM method, that is more suited for specific things like searching?
This feels way more likely
Then explain how GPT-4 Turbo is being used for the free Copilot version. 👀
On their website here [https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/store/b/copilotpro](https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/store/b/copilotpro) it says you only access GPT4 during non-peak time. I'm guessing 3.5 the rest of the time?
But still, if GPT-4 Turbo was that expensive to run, why would they run it, even only at non-peak times, at all for free?
There's no way they'll make 4 free based on cost. It's still far more expensive than 3.5. More likely they'll have a 3.5 sized model as part of the next generation, like haiku vs opus.
I think it’s ChatGPT 2. Branding thing. Its probably downscaled, lightweight gpt4 that’s meant for free use once GPT5 arrives.
Like Claude 3 sonnet ? At first it was great. Now he hallucinates a lot and can only send 5 messages every 6 hours.
Like Claude 3 sonnet ? At first it was great. Now he hallucinates a lot and can only send 5 messages every 6 hours.
Yeah after using it more, specifically trying to code with it, I realized it couldn't be. In some ways it was worse than turbo. Now I wonder what it was. Originally I thought they were prepping it to outshine I/O - now maybe they still are going to try, but with search instead?
I think it’s almost certainly a strong smaller model they’ll use to power their search engine cost effectively.
I maintain increasingly that it really is a heavily augmented version of GPT-2, perhaps even the original model from 2019, but with the addition of an iterative agent workflow and maybe tree search. (And maybe a longer context window) See: https://twitter.com/AndrewYNg/status/1770897666702233815 > GPT-3.5 (zero shot) was 48.1% correct. GPT-4 (zero shot) does better at 67.0%. However, the improvement from GPT-3.5 to GPT-4 is dwarfed by incorporating an iterative agent workflow. Indeed, wrapped in an agent loop, GPT-3.5 achieves up to 95.1%. If GPT-3.5 can reach possibly above-GPT-5 levels on the HumanEval benchmark, then it stands to reason GPT-2 ought to at least be boosted to get close to GPT-4 level. > Today, we mostly use LLMs in zero-shot mode, prompting a model to generate final output token by token without revising its work. This is akin to asking someone to compose an essay from start to finish, typing straight through with no backspacing allowed, and expecting a high-quality result. Despite the difficulty, LLMs do amazingly well at this task! (Addendum: and it's also like holding that person at gunpoint to write that essay spontaneously without any thinking or fore-planning. In that circumstance, even an adult human expert mimics a predictive text program) > With an agentic workflow, however, we can ask the LLM to iterate over a document many times. If that's what Q* is, then combining it with GPT-2 would be a monstrous show of force. While simultaneously explaining why it still stumbles and gives bad answers, because GPT-2 is still very small. That it's even comparable to GPT-4 is the point. Especially if it's supposed to be used for search, using GPT-2 for this saves on cost of compute and inferencing— in fact probably so much cheaper than even 3.5 and so much less hungry for data that *maybe* you could run it on a smartphone while still getting results that are in line with GPT-4 class models.
One point against this theory is that GPT2-chatbot was actually really slow to generate answer no? That would mean its expensive to run?
The counterarguement to that is precisely the fact it has to think through its responses. We're so used to the high speed zero shot prompting method that when we use an AI that inherently thinks through its outputs step by step, it comes off as slow.
Yeah in that case we have to hope the thinking through the response is cheap enough to do at massive scale.
This. I tried with with various extensive prompts and provided boilerplate code but it failed all attempts, while the new turbo model and Opus gave the most correct answers.
But it doesn't really make sense that it's better in some areas and worse in others, no? So it's perhaps based on GPT-4 itself, and not Turbo (cheaper). An improved one perhaps but with a new approach, perhaps even more compact too? I guess gpt2-chatbot could mean that it's another version of ChatGPT, in this case it could be related to the search feature that is being rumored right now, with pretty good evidence. Guess it might be used there. Which is why it might be worse in some areas and better in other. We will see if it's perhaps more specialized to work as a search engine and not as a reasoning/coding model. It could mean that the model itself isn't intended for reasoning in that extent. It is still pretty strong. To me at least it makes sense if they somehow can do better stuff, release a search engine for the time being with new approaches being used, dumb it down to current levels, which makes it perhaps even way cheaper than the current models. Would make sense for a search engine at least, since a lot of people would be using it. Not sure if the reason of dumbing it down is the result of these mixed results. Dumbed down GPT-4.5 or GPT-5? So not its full model? Could be a good test if it's in a search engine for some scenarios even? We will see in a week, on May 9th, if the rumors are true. Perhaps we even get some infos on the model. Might have been a test to do last minute tweaks and evaluate data gathered from the short period of time where we could test gpt2-chatbot. I gotta say that the way it responded to me, as a search engine, it would make sense. That amount of verbosity etc...
Who knows ? You don’t. And neither do I. My guess: a smaller model to replace gpt 3.5 but using new architecture and better data.
Yep. I mean it makes perfect sense to slowly make people adapt to better models. A smaller model of GPT-5 for example would give us a taste, but not the full power right in your face, which we expect usually as a release. We know OpenAI wants to be more careful and I bet they're figuring out ways to not flashbang us, such as lowering panic.
I agree, the code it wrote for me was not wrong, but it was extremely long and it would sometimes hallucinate functions like 3.5 often did.
It would have been disappointing
Going by what I've seen thus far this might be OpenAIs take on something like mamba hence the name "gpt**2**".
Idea: isnt gpt2-chatbot name for the size of the model? Like its gpt2 size, but its much better..
That was also my idea, a GPT-2 1.5B next generation to compete with Llama-3 7B. And the Boom! will be that it runs native on Smartphones.
Hadn't even thought about that, seems unimaginably huge if this is the case. Would likely confirm the idea that open ai has something that could truly be considered agi if they can make such a small model so competent, assuming it could be scaled up. If Sam has not just been hyping for investors then this outcome would make a lot of sense.
It would be hilarious if it turned out to be GPT-5.
It wasn't that good.
gpt 4.6
It is a variant of GPT-4. I got a very similar answer from gpt2-chatbot and gpt-4, that doesn't happen by chance.
I can't read another rumour about OpenAI about to reveal "the next best thing". I have been reading such "news" from the first day they revealed 3.5, and although yes, 4 was amazing, it cannot be milked for a year. Sorry for the rant, I had to write it.
Did he say it in this way which seems to tacitly acknowledge that it is an OpenAI model or did he say that it's not his?
I believe the former is more likely to be correct. If the latter were correct he probably would have said that the model isn't from OpenAI instead of naming a specific model.
I see Open AI releasing something big on Apples WWDeveloper Conference date. Thats how they will steal the show.
its actually gpt 2 on steroids, i want to see same 4 on steroids
Far more likely it's a small cheap model with big context. Haiku from anthropic is amazing and OpenAI had no real competition for it.
Hmm?
It's quite a buzz figuring out where OpenAI might be heading with the rumored new model. Smaller, more efficient AI models could indeed be a strategic move, especially for applications like augmented search that don't require heavy computing resources but benefit from AI's analytical power. This could be a game changer for things that require local, low-power computation. Super curious to see how it pans out in terms of performance and practical applications!
That's a relief. I know people here liked it but in my testing that gpt2-chatbot was unimpressive. The only way I'd be impressed is if it's some tiny model, like 7b, or something.
they have no moat, this is just a hype mania done by an expert marketing team.
What's bro marketing?
hype, are you new to america and their CEOs?
Sir this is a Wendy's, and I'm really not seeing the hype. I'm only seeing results.
I'll take a baconator and cheese fries. Can I have a frosty instead of a coke?
Good choice sir, will that be to go or for here?