Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | MengerSponge's commentslogin

Making existing models more efficient won't make them God in a Box.

True but neither will going bankrupt.

They're all in a race to bankrupt the others, and then pivot and raise prices and go efficient fast enough to avoid their own bankruptcy.

We'll see if it works!


Ye of little faith. God in a Box will tell them how to not go bankrupt.

Except they already did this: if they had scaled 4.5 with RL, 5 would probably have been the leap we expected

If anything 4.5 being abandoned so they could sell India a $3 a month subscription was the first crack in The Box


Did you really mean to say 4.5? Gpt 4.5 used to cost $75/$150 per million tokens input/output. And it did not even seem to be that good to justify that. I would not expect many people were using it, and I doubt that "expanding to india" was what killed it (if it was that useful/popular they would have kept the api, or keep it for higher end subscriptions).

If anything it should have been no1 in the "openAI graveyard" website.


India in this context is a synecdoche for scaling consumer vs Anthropic's more enterprise-y route, but yes that's pretty much why we didn't get 4.5 with reasoning. Without reasoning, 4.5 had no future.

From Sam Altman himself:

> We had this big GPU crunch. We could go make another giant model. We could go make that, and a lot of people would want to use it, and we would disappoint them. And so we said, let’s make a really smart, really useful model, but also let’s try to optimize for inference cost. And I think we did a great job with that.

4.5 scaled into a unified reasoning model would have been an incredible model. It beat GPT-5 on accuracy and hallucinations without reasoning (!)

It just wouldn't have worked for powering things like ChatGPT Go's rollout and loginless chatgpt.com, so they dropped it.

(And if you want, you could argue it's the compute crunch that didn't let them do both... but Anthropic had to make the same choices at the time and went in the other direction.)


+1 Deciding what to write is the critical step. You can get it with careful typing, but it's harder because you can type fast enough to skip that step.

A systemic risk to the financial sector due to their overexposure to CDOs? Yes, I know that's the same plot as 2008. The writers have gotten lazy.

Replace financial sector with big tech and overexposure to CDOs to overexposure to large promised data centers build outs and you have the right answer.

100%

It's wrong to encourage and profit from fraud or magical thinking.


Bluesky doesn't push an algorithmic feed, so it looks empty if you aren't following people who are posting.

FWIW starter kits and topical feeds are a great way to jumpstart your algorithm.


Inspired by, not taken. It's a clever solution to a hard problem!

Do you remember Ask Jeeves? Dogpile? Google was an incredible improvement!



Professor Cottom's a certified (McArthur) Genius, and she clocked this "scam culture" back in 2021:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/10/opinion/scams-trust-insti...

Things have gotten dramatically worse since then.


I knew a couple of McArthur Genius grant recipients (they were students like me) when I was in college. I wouldn't put any of them among the top most intelligent students I went to school with. The way they are chosen isn't exactly bad but it doesn't end up with giving the grants to "geniuses". If you aren't in one of the top most competitive fields, its more about applying and getting the right recommendations. If you get one in math or CS, then yes...that's very impressive. Professor Cotton (sp?) isn't in one of those fields.

Bro. You don't apply for the McArthur.

And why would you go out of your way to misspell her name? What do you gain by that aside from just looking petulant?


Fun fact: "open divisions" only last as long as men are winning them. Women often outshoot men, and after Shan Zhang's win they were siloed into their own division.

> Fun fact: "open divisions" only last as long as men are winning them. Women often outshoot men, and after Shan Zhang's win they were siloed into their own division.

That decision was made before her win.

> the International Shooting Union, at a meeting in April of 1992, and therefore ahead of the Games, elected to bar women from shooting against men in future events.

<https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/2753773/2021/08/05/in-tokyo...>


In the same way, LeBron James has earned more money from selling shoes than playing basketball.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: