• kalleboo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    3 hours ago

    They literally don’t know. “GPT-5” is several models, with a model gating in front to choose which model to use depending on how “hard” it thinks the question is. They’ve already been tweaking the front-end to change how it cuts over. They’ve definitely going to keep changing it.

  • Transtronaut@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 hours ago

    If anyone has ever wondered what it would look like if tech giants went all in on “brute force” programming, this is it. This is what it looks like.

  • devfuuu@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 hours ago

    How can anyone look at that face and trust anything that mad man could have to say.

  • Saledovil@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    58
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    13 hours ago

    It’s safe to assume that any metric they don’t disclose is quite damning to them. Plus, these guys don’t really care about the environmental impact, or what us tree-hugging environmentalists think. I’m assuming the only group they are scared of upsetting right now is investors. The thing is, even if you don’t care about the environment, the problem with LLMs is how poorly they scale.

    An important concept when evaluating how something scales is are marginal values, chiefly marginal utility and marginal expenses. Marginal utility is how much utility do you get if you get one more unit of whatever. Marginal expenses is how much it costs to get one more unit. And what the LLMs produce is the probably that a token, T, follows on prefix Q. So P(T|Q) (read: Probably of T, given Q). This is done for all known tokens, and then based on these probabilities, one token is chosen at random. This token is then appended to the prefix, and the process repeats, until the LLM produces a sequence which indicates that it’s done talking.

    If we now imagine the best possible LLM, then the calculated value for P(T|Q) would be the actual value. However, it’s worth noting that this already displays a limitation of LLMs. Namely even if we use this ideal LLM, we’re just a few bad dice rolls away from saying something dumb, which then pollutes the context. And the larger we make the LLM, the closer its results get to the actual value. A potential way to measure this precision would be by subtracting P(T|Q) from P_calc(T|Q), and counting the leading zeroes, essentially counting the number of digits we got right. Now, the thing is that each additional digit only provides a tenth of the utility to than the digit before it. While the cost for additional digits goes up exponentially.

    So, exponentially decaying marginal utility meets exponentially growing marginal expenses. Which is really bad for companies that try to market LLMs.

    • Jeremyward@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      13 hours ago

      Well I mean also that they kinda suck, I feel like I spend more time debugging AI code than I get working code.

      • SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        10 hours ago

        I only use it if I’m stuck even if the AI code is wrong it often pushes me in the right direction to find the correct solution for my problem. Like pair programming but a bit shitty.

        The best way to use these LLMs with coding is to never use the generated code directly and atomize your problem into smaller questions you ask to the LLM.

      • squaresinger@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        11 hours ago

        That’s actually true. I read some research on that and your feeling is correct.

        Can’t be bothered to google it right now.

    • Event_Horizon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      14 hours ago

      I wonder if at this stage all the processors should simply be submerged into a giant cooling tank. It seems easier and more efficient.

      • IsoKiero@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        8 hours ago

        Or you could build the centers in colder climate areas. Here in Finland it’s common (maybe even mandatory, I’m not sure) for new datacenters to pull the heat from their systems and use that for district heating. No wasted water and at least you get something useful out of LLMs. Obviously using them as a massive electric boiler is pretty inefficient but energy for heating is needed anyways so at least we can stay warm and get 90s action series fanfic on top of that.

          • IsoKiero@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            4 hours ago

            There’s experimental storages where heat is pumped to underground pools or sand, but as far as I know there’s heat exchangers and radiators to outside, so majority of excess heat is just wasted to outside. But absolute majority of them are closed loop systems since you need something else than plain water anyways to prevent freezing in the winter.

  • fuzzywombat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    ·
    17 hours ago

    Sam Altman has gone into PR and hype overdrive lately. He is practically everywhere trying to distract the media from seeing the truth about LLM. GPT-5 has basically proved that we’ve hit a wall and the belief that LLM will just scale linearly with amount of training data is false. He knows AI bubble is bursting and he is scared.

    • rozodru@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Bingo. If you routinely use LLM’s/AI you’ve recently seen it first hand. ALL of them have become noticeably worse over the past few months. Even if simply using it as a basic tool, it’s worse. Claude for all the praise it receives has also gotten worse. I’ve noticed it starting to forget context or constantly contradicting itself. even Claude Code.

      The release of GPT5 is proof in the pudding that a wall has been hit and the bubble is bursting. There’s nothing left to train on and all the LLM’s have been consuming each others waste as a result. I’ve talked about it on here several times already due to my work but companies are also seeing this. They’re scrambling to undo the fuck up of using AI to build their stuff, None of what they used it to build scales. None of it. And you go on Linkedin and see all the techbros desperately trying to hype the mounds of shit that remain.

      I don’t know what’s next for AI but this current generation of it is dying. It didn’t work.

      • BluesF@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        6 hours ago

        I was initially impressed by the ‘reasoning’ features of LLMs, but most recently ChatGPT gave me a response to a question in which it stated five or six possible answers sparated by “oh, but that can’t be right, so it must be…”, and none of them was right lmao. Thought for like 30 seconds to give me a selection of wrong answers!

      • Tja@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 hours ago

        Any studies about this “getting worse” or just anecdotes? I do routinely use them and I feel they are getting better (my workplace uses Google suite so I have access to gemini). Just last week it helped me debug an ipv6 ra problem that I couldn’t crack, and I learned a few useful commands on the way.

    • Saledovil@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      13 hours ago

      He’s also already admitted that they’re out of training data. If you’ve wondered why a lot more websites will run some sort of verification when you connect, it’s because there’s a desperate scramble to get more training data.

    • Tollana1234567@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      14 hours ago

      MS already released, thier AI doesnt make money at all, in fact its costing too much. of course hes freaking out.

    • Tollana1234567@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      14 hours ago

      those are his lying/making up hand gestures. its the same thing trump does with his hands when hes lying or exaggerating, he does the wierd accordian hands.

  • redsunrise@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    290
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    Obviously it’s higher. If it was any lower, they would’ve made a huge announcement out of it to prove they’re better than the competition.

    • thatcrow@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 hours ago

      It warms me heart to see ya’ll finally tune-in to the scumbag tactics our abusers constantly employ.

    • Chaotic Entropy@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      23 hours ago

      I get the distinct impression that most of the focus for GPT5 was making it easier to divert their overflowing volume of queries to less expensive routes.

    • Ugurcan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      40
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      I’m thinking otherwise. I think GPT5 is a much smaller model - with some fallback to previous models if required.

      Since it’s running on the exact same hardware with a mostly similar algorithm, using less energy would directly mean it’s a “less intense” model, which translates into an inferior quality in American Investor Language (AIL).

      And 2025’s investors doesn’t give a flying fuck about energy efficiency.

    • T156@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      18 hours ago

      Unless it wasn’t as low as they wanted it. It’s at least cheap enough to run that they can afford to drop the pricing on the API compared to their older models.

    • morrowind@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      19 hours ago

      It’s cheaper though, so very likely it’s more efficient somehow.

      • SonOfAntenora@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        18 hours ago

        I believe in verifiable statements and so far,with few exceptions, I saw nothing. We are now speculating on magical numbers that we can’t see, but we know that ai is demanding and we know that even small models are not free. The only accessible data come from mistral, most other ai devs are not exactly happy to share the inner workings of their tools. Even than, mistral didn’t release all their data, even if they did it would only apply to mistral 7b and above, not to chatgpt.

        • Sl00k@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 hour ago

          The only accessible data come from mistral, most other ai devs are not exactly happy to share the inner workings of their tools.

          Important to point out this is really only valid towards Western AI companies. Chinese AI models have mostly been open source with open papers.

    • Saledovil@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      13 hours ago

      Current genAI? Never. There’s at least one breakthrough needed to build something capable of actual thinking.

    • xthexder@l.sw0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      23 hours ago

      Most certainly it won’t happen until after AI has developed a self-preservation bias. It’s too bad the solution is turning off the AI.

  • dinckel@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    74
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    Duh. Every company like this “suddenly” starts withholding public progress reports, once their progress fucking goes downhill. Stop giving these parasites handouts