←back to thread

GPT-5.2

(openai.com)
1019 points atgctg | 3 comments | 11 Dec 25 18:04 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
sfmike ◴[11 Dec 25 18:21 UTC] No.46234974[source]▶
Everything is still based on 4 4o still right? is a new model training just too expensive? They can consult deepseek team maybe for cost constrained new models.
replies(4): >>46235000 #>>46235052 #>>46235127 #>>46235143 #
verdverm ◴[11 Dec 25 18:24 UTC] No.46235000[source]▶
Apparently they have not had a successful pre training run in 1.5 years
replies(2): >>46235068 #>>46235299 #
fouronnes3 ◴[11 Dec 25 18:29 UTC] No.46235068[source]▶
I want to read a short scify story set in 2150 about how, mysteriously, no one has been able to train a better LLM for 125 years. The binary weights are studied with unbelievably advanced quantum computers but no one can really train a new AI from scratch. This starts cults, wars and legends and ultimately (by the third book) leads to the main protagonist learning to code by hand, something that no human left alive still knows how to do. Could this be the secret to making a new AI from scratch, more than a century later?
replies(6): >>46235128 #>>46235237 #>>46235306 #>>46235386 #>>46235429 #>>46235455 #
ssl-3 ◴[11 Dec 25 18:52 UTC] No.46235429[source]▶
Sounds good.

Might sell better with the protagonist learning iron age leatherworking, with hides tanned from cows that were grown within earshot, as part of a process of finding the real root of the reason for why any of us ever came to be in the first place. This realization process culminates in the formation of a global, unified steampunk BDSM movement and a wealth of new diseases, and then: Zombies.

(That's the end. Zombies are always the end.)

replies(2): >>46238931 #>>46239250 #
1. wafflemaker ◴[11 Dec 25 23:39 UTC] No.46238931[source]▶
Sorry, but compared with the parent, my money is in you ssl-3. Do you get better results from prompting by being more poetic?
replies(1): >>46242247 #
2. ssl-3 ◴[12 Dec 25 09:05 UTC] No.46242247[source]▶
> Do you get better results from prompting by being more poetic?

Is that yet-another accusation of having used the bot?

I don't use the bot to write English prose. If something I write seems particularly great or poetic or something, then that's just me: I was in the right mood, at the right time, with the right idea -- and with the right audience.

When it's bad or fucked-up, then that's also just me. I most-assuredly fuck up plenty.

They can't all be zingers. I'm fine with that.

---

I do use the hell out of the bot for translating my ideas (and the words that I use to express them) into languages that I can't speak well, like Python, C, and C++. But that's very different. (And at least so far I haven't shared any of those bot outputs with the world at all, either.)

So to take your question very literally: No, I don't get better results from prompting being more poetic. The responses to my prompts don't improve by those prompts being articulate or poetic.

Instead, I've found that I get the best results from the bot fastest by carrying a big stick, and using that stick to hammer and welt it into compliance.

Things can get rather irreverent in my interactions with the bot. Poeticism is pretty far removed from any of that business.

replies(1): >>46242933 #
3. wafflemaker ◴[12 Dec 25 10:59 UTC] No.46242933[source]▶
No. I just genuinely liked your style, and didn't notice previous posts by you. I haven't yet learned to look at names on hn, it's mostly anonymous posts for me. No snark here. And was also genuinely curious if better writing style yields better results.

I've observed that using proper grammar gives slightly better answers. And using more "literacy"(?) kind of language in prompts sometimes gives better answers and sometimes just more interesting ones, when bots try to follow my style.

Sorry for using the word poetic, I'm travelling and sleep deprived and couldn't find the proper word, but didn't want to just use "nice" instead either.