Most active commenters
  • jumploops(3)

←back to thread

GPT-5.2

(openai.com)
1019 points atgctg | 19 comments | | HN request time: 0.807s | source | bottom
1. jumploops ◴[] No.46235526[source]
> “a new knowledge cutoff of August 2025”

This (and the price increase) points to a new pretrained model under-the-hood.

GPT-5.1, in contrast, was allegedly using the same pretraining as GPT-4o.

replies(5): >>46236646 #>>46236703 #>>46236791 #>>46237182 #>>46240048 #
2. 98Windows ◴[] No.46236646[source]
or maybe 5.1 was an older checkpoint and has more quantization
3. ◴[] No.46236703[source]
4. FergusArgyll ◴[] No.46236791[source]
A new pretrain would definitely get more than a .1 version bump & would get a whole lot more hype I'd think. They're expensive to do!
replies(8): >>46237036 #>>46237044 #>>46237046 #>>46237207 #>>46237270 #>>46239181 #>>46239733 #>>46241840 #
5. femiagbabiaka ◴[] No.46237036[source]
Not if they didn't feel that it delivered customer value no? It's about under promising and over delivering, in every instance
6. redwood ◴[] No.46237044[source]
Not if it underwhelms
7. hannesfur ◴[] No.46237046[source]
Maybe they felt the increase in capability is not worth of a bigger version bump. Additionally pre-training isn't as important as it used to be. Most of the advances we see now probably come from the RL stage.
8. MagicMoonlight ◴[] No.46237182[source]
No, they just feed in another round of slop to the same model.
9. caconym_ ◴[] No.46237207[source]
Releasing anything as "GPT-6" which doesn't provide a generational leap in performance would be a PR nightmare for them, especially after the underwhelming release of GPT-5.

I don't think it really matters what's under the hood. People expect model "versions" to be indexed on performance.

10. ACCount37 ◴[] No.46237270[source]
Not necessarily. GPT-4.5 was a new pretrain on top of a sizeable raw model scale bump, and only got 0.5 - because the gains from reasoning training in o-series overshadowed GPT-4.5's natural advantage over GPT-4.

OpenAI might have learned not to overhype. They already shipped GPT-5 - which was only an incremental upgrade over o3, and was received poorly, with this being a part of the reason why.

replies(1): >>46240248 #
11. boc ◴[] No.46239181[source]
Maybe the rumors about failed training runs weren't wrong...
12. jumploops ◴[] No.46239733[source]
It’s possible they’re using some new architecture to get more up-to-date data, but I think that’d be even more of a headline.

My hunch is that this is the same 5.1 post-training on a new pretrained base.

Likely rushed out the door faster than they initially expected/planned.

13. redox99 ◴[] No.46240048[source]
I think it's more likely to be the old base model checkpoint further trained on additional data.
replies(1): >>46242079 #
14. diego_sandoval ◴[] No.46240248{3}[source]
I jumped straight from 4o (free user) into GPT-5 (paid user).

It was a generational leap if there ever has been one. Much bigger than 3.5 to 4.

replies(2): >>46240767 #>>46242399 #
15. kadushka ◴[] No.46240767{4}[source]
What kind of improvements do you expect when going from 5 straight to 6?
16. OrangeMusic ◴[] No.46241840[source]
Yeah because OpenAI has been great at naming their models so far? ;)
17. jumploops ◴[] No.46242079[source]
Is that technically not a new pretrained model?

(Also not sure how that would work, but maybe I’ve missed a paper or two!)

replies(1): >>46242304 #
18. redox99 ◴[] No.46242304{3}[source]
I'd say for it to be called a new pretrained model, it'd need to be trained from scratch (like llama 1, 2, 3).

But it's just semantics.

19. ACCount37 ◴[] No.46242399{4}[source]
Yes, if OpenAI released GPT-5 after GPT-4o, then it would have been seen as a proper generational leap.

But o3 existing and being good at what it does? Took the wind out of GPT-5's sails.