←back to thread

GPT-5.2

(openai.com)
1019 points atgctg | 6 comments | 11 Dec 25 18:04 UTC | HN request time: 0.391s | source | bottom
Show context
onraglanroad ◴[11 Dec 25 21:06 UTC] No.46237160[source]▶
I suppose this is as good a place as any to mention this. I've now met two different devs who complained about the weird responses from their LLM of choice, and it turned out they were using a single session for everything. From recipes for the night, presents for the wife and then into programming issues the next day.

Don't do that. The whole context is sent on queries to the LLM, so start a new chat for each topic. Or you'll start being told what your wife thinks about global variables and how to cook your Go.

I realise this sounds obvious to many people but it clearly wasn't to those guys so maybe it's not!

replies(14): >>46237301 #>>46237674 #>>46237722 #>>46237855 #>>46237911 #>>46238296 #>>46238727 #>>46239388 #>>46239806 #>>46239829 #>>46240070 #>>46240318 #>>46240785 #>>46241428 #
holtkam2 ◴[12 Dec 25 00:30 UTC] No.46239388[source]▶
I know I sound like a snob but I’ve had many moments with Gen AI tools over the years that made me wonder: I wonder what these tools are like for someone who doesn’t know how LLMs work under the hood? It’s probably completely bizarre? Apps like Cursor or ChatGPT would be incomprehensible to me as a user, I feel.
replies(2): >>46240669 #>>46241731 #
1. Workaccount2 ◴[12 Dec 25 03:46 UTC] No.46240669[source]▶
Using my parents as a reference, they just thought it was neat when I showed them GPT-4 years ago. My jaw was on the floor for weeks, but most regular folks I showed had a pretty "oh thats kinda neat" response.

Technology is already so insane and advanced that most people just take it as magic inside boxes, so nothing is surprising anymore. It's all equally incomprehensible already.

replies(3): >>46241337 #>>46241344 #>>46241369 #
2. jacobedawson ◴[12 Dec 25 06:10 UTC] No.46241337[source]▶
This mirrors my experience, the non-technical people in my life either shrugged and said 'oh yeah that's cool' or started pointing out gnarly edge cases where it didn't work perfectly. Meanwhile as a techie my mind was (and still is) spinning with the shock and joy of using natural human language to converse with a super-humanly adept machine.
replies(1): >>46243193 #
3. khafra ◴[12 Dec 25 06:12 UTC] No.46241344[source]▶
LLMs are an especially tough case, because the field of AI had to spend sixty years telling people that real AI was nothing like what you saw in the comics and movies; and now we have real AI that presents pretty much exactly like what you used to see in the comics and movies.
replies(1): >>46242449 #
4. Agentlien ◴[12 Dec 25 06:17 UTC] No.46241369[source]▶
My parents reacted in just the same way and the lackluster response really took me by surprise.
5. xwolfi ◴[12 Dec 25 09:38 UTC] No.46242449[source]▶
But it cannot think or mean anything, it's just a clever parrot so it's a bit weird. I guess uncanny is the word. I use it as google now, like just to search stuff that are hard to express with keywords.
6. throw310822 ◴[12 Dec 25 11:41 UTC] No.46243193[source]▶
I don't think the divide is between technical and non-technical people. HN is full of people that are weirdly, obstinately dismissive of LLMs (stochastic parrots, glorified autocompletes, AI slop, etc.). Personal anecdote: my father (85yo, humanistic culture) was astounded by the perfectly spot-on analysis Claude provided of a poetic text he had written. He was doubly astounded when, showing Claude's analysis to a close friend, he reacted with complete indifference as if it were normal for computers to competently discuss poetry.