The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Watching midwit redditors criticize GPT-5 is unreal
Poast new message in this thread
Date: August 12th, 2025 1:09 PM Author: The Wandering Mercatores (from the Euphrates to the Forum) They get up there with all the confidence in the world citing midwit psychologists and "cognitive scientists" about how it can't count and makes basic mistakes. Meanwhile I'm sitting here running machine learning experiments in pytorch using higher geometry and stochastic calculus that would take weeks to set up normally and GPT is just effortlessly outputting working scripts. It's insane, these people are questioning whether its intelligent at all, and are talking about how they need scientists outside open AI to confirm it but complaining open AI isn't releasing all of their training data. unreal. it's like Reddit is getting even dumber over time. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5761614&forum_id=2/#49178348) |
Date: August 12th, 2025 1:12 PM Author: scholarship But can it cutesy LGBT+ companion (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5761614&forum_id=2/#49178356) |
|
Date: August 12th, 2025 1:12 PM Author: slippery socio-emotio-economic slope (gunneratttt) tbf we've got a healthy contingent of lukewarm iq poasters here now too.
any subreddit over 100k users gets super fucking retarded. i assume there are some small ones where smart csmos hang. like, there are a handful of ok law subs but /r/law is painfully stupid. |
 |
Date: August 12th, 2025 1:19 PM Author: The Wandering Mercatores (from the Euphrates to the Forum) yeah I'm not even looking for csmos or anything like that though, I just can't believe how confident these people are in declaring something that can easily be demonstrated to outthink them as non-intelligent. also they cite all of these wordcel academics that make the same foolish arguments that aren't even referring to real tasks, it's all goalpost moving and holding the machine to standards they would never hold a human to. Crazy to watch I never realized that wordcel professors are basically as retarded as redditors too, but now that you can just read everything these people think publicly its eye opening. I always suspected it and have heard XO speak about it, but am just now witnessing it firsthand. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5761614&forum_id=2/#49178375) |
|
Date: August 12th, 2025 2:06 PM Author: slippery socio-emotio-economic slope (gunneratttt) as a kid i used to think everyone has about the same capacity for logical reasoning or at least a baseline average that was capable of understanding things. i thought with the internet it would be like enders game where high level debate would flourish and misinformation would be impossible.
turns out most people are dumb af. and annoyingly confident about it.
reddit is fun though cause you can click their profiles and see them asking about 29% apr financing on a car for turo and then arrogantly opining about ai and politics. |
|
Date: August 12th, 2025 2:32 PM Author: The Wandering Mercatores (from the Euphrates to the Forum) I remember one time I read your experience of visiting a local ttt and watching the law students fail to grasp the most basic concepts, and completely lack the capacity for any type of meta-thinking or abstract applications of principles. Just memorization of principles and that's it. I enjoyed that story. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5761614&forum_id=2/#49178640) |
|
Date: August 12th, 2025 2:43 PM Author: slippery socio-emotio-economic slope (gunneratttt) tyty
now consider that those people are all around 110iq+ i.e. about a std. dev over average.
if you've seen me rant about iq it's because i did a bunch of graduate work in cognitive science and that firmly disabuses anyone of the notion that "iq =/= real" and that anyone can just learn to code or do other white collar work if only they had the education and resources. |
|
Date: August 12th, 2025 2:34 PM Author: chill internet user with one static pseudonym i didn't, i knew people were way dumber than me as soon as i went to preschool and interacted with them
outed as not actually being smart *tips fedora toward you* |
|
Date: August 12th, 2025 2:45 PM Author: slippery socio-emotio-economic slope (gunneratttt) based on your level of reasoning in our discussion on ai and national policy you are not as smart as you think you are champ. the "lazy genius" architype is very common with the mpc crowd. you're all geniuses who just *happen* to have below average life outcomes! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5761614&forum_id=2/#49178690) |
|
Date: August 12th, 2025 2:50 PM Author: chill internet user with one static pseudonym it's really easy to make money and be successful if you're smart man. this is unironically another midwit tell, thinking that people can be smart but poor. these people just don't exist
i don't think i've ever met a smart but poor person except for a few who have suffered from drug addiction |
|
Date: August 12th, 2025 2:54 PM Author: slippery socio-emotio-economic slope (gunneratttt) thanks for proving my point by demonstrating your poor reading comprehension.
i'm clearly saying that the subpar life outcomes of the mpc poasters who have been outed is a strong indication they're not very smart because iq and earnings are highly correlative. |
|
Date: August 12th, 2025 2:59 PM Author: chill internet user with one static pseudonym nobody here even posted on mpc man jfc. is the "boner police" who "posted on mpc" in the room with you right now?
you just make all this stuff up and then call people stupid for not believing it lol |
|
Date: August 12th, 2025 3:01 PM Author: slippery socio-emotio-economic slope (gunneratttt) the enjoyment you all have repeating the same shit endlessly for years is indicative you're on the spectrum too (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5761614&forum_id=2/#49178725) |
|
Date: August 12th, 2025 1:12 PM Author: cock of michael obama Nigger (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5761614&forum_id=2/#49178358) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2025 4:54 PM Author: stack (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5761614&forum_id=2/#49182362) |
|
Date: August 12th, 2025 1:14 PM Author: chill internet user with one static pseudonym i can't get over how insane the chimpout over the switch from 4o has been. every part of it is just so creepy and unsettling
the way that these people rationalize their addiction and reactions *and use AI to write their posts that lay out these rationalizations* is so eerie. the sheer breadth and diversity of made up lies and rationalizations is staggering
the actual gpt-5 model is very clearly and noticeably better than 4o at *everything,* including writing and wordplay. every single complaint about 5 being "worse" is made up bullshit, straight up. people are just flat out lying and delusional and upset about losing their sycophantic, narcissistic supply-generating imaginary friends. that's it, that's all that's going on. it's nuts
definitely a canary in the coal mine moment |
|
Date: August 12th, 2025 1:31 PM Author: The Wandering Mercatores (from the Euphrates to the Forum) yeah its insane. its a mix of people upset about losing their sycophantic oracles and people who are unable to emotionally process the fact that something can outthink them in seconds without breaking a sweat. then there are also a huge amount of people who have no idea how "good" or "bad" it is and are just picking a side based on vibes of stuff they read on the internet. they cite things that aren't actually connected to the performance, like the fact there are people talking about "the singularity" and "solving all humanities problems" not realizing that there could be idiots talking about that stuff and GPT-5 can also legitimately be impressive. they could easily give it advanced reasoning tasks to test it but they aren't looking to actually test it they want to either find evidence its not intelligent or have an approved "expert" tell them it isn't (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5761614&forum_id=2/#49178412) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2025 10:09 AM Author: Midwit Pun Advocate (No Future) Don't forget the fact that it "Just steals" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5761614&forum_id=2/#49181353) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2025 10:24 AM Author: slippery socio-emotio-economic slope (gunneratttt) "all it does is compile information for a wide variety of sources and synthesize that into a readable answer."
as opposed to what? sending out AI drones to conduct independent field research? |
|
Date: August 13th, 2025 10:25 AM Author: chill internet user with one static pseudonym as opposed to thinking, yeah (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5761614&forum_id=2/#49181384) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2025 10:26 AM Author: slippery socio-emotio-economic slope (gunneratttt) the "thinking" is the synthesis of information.
elaborate on what you mean by "thinking"? |
|
Date: August 13th, 2025 10:31 AM Author: chill internet user with one static pseudonym actual thinking (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5761614&forum_id=2/#49181402) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2025 10:35 AM Author: slippery socio-emotio-economic slope (gunneratttt) you poast a lot about ai so idk why you wont elaborate (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5761614&forum_id=2/#49181409) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2025 10:39 AM Author: chill internet user with one static pseudonym LLMs can't "think" the way that humans do, with deliberately constructed abstract models, concepts, symbols, etc
they're just very very good pattern matchers. they can't do novel inference. everything they're outputting is just pattern recognition. they can't generalize or solve problem types that they haven't seen before |
|
Date: August 13th, 2025 11:13 AM Author: slippery socio-emotio-economic slope (gunneratttt) most thinking is exactly what you describe. of course it can't do higher level cognitive tasks. many humans struggle with this too.
thinking involves pattern recognition, inference, weighing evidence, etc. AI does all these things, or at least mimics it. |
|
Date: August 13th, 2025 11:29 AM Author: chill internet user with one static pseudonym right, most humans can't think either. this is cr (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5761614&forum_id=2/#49181500) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2025 11:36 AM Author: slippery socio-emotio-economic slope (gunneratttt) everyone thinks. you're just defining thinking as a very narrow band of high level cognition, which isn't what think means. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5761614&forum_id=2/#49181527) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2025 11:37 AM Author: chill internet user with one static pseudonym no, not everyone thinks in the way that i defined thinking above. they absolutely do not (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5761614&forum_id=2/#49181531) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2025 1:01 PM Author: slippery socio-emotio-economic slope (gunneratttt) another rc fail.
how is that incompatible with what i just said? |
|
Date: August 13th, 2025 3:03 PM Author: The Wandering Mercatores (from the Euphrates to the Forum) "LLMs can't "think" the way that humans do, with deliberately constructed abstract models, concepts, symbols, etc they're just very very good pattern matchers. they can't do novel inference. everything they're outputting is just pattern recognition. they can't generalize or solve problem types that they haven't seen before"
lol literally all of this is wildly false |
|
Date: August 13th, 2025 3:09 PM Author: slippery socio-emotio-economic slope (gunneratttt) i didn't want to push back on this to find out what he meant by "think" but ljl. when dunning kruger types dont have an answer theyll offen just throw in a bunch of smart sounding words.
"abstract models, concepts, symbols, etc"
like what? if you created a pattern of novel symbols llms would be much better at identifying it than most people. thats what it's *best* at. |
|
Date: August 13th, 2025 3:15 PM Author: The Wandering Mercatores (from the Euphrates to the Forum) its the same type of shit you see redditors parrot all day because they read other redditors say it before.
"llms can't think with abstract models or symbols"
Maybe not *exactly* the way humans do it, but symbolic abstraction is what they are learning to approximate from their training. And the way they do it seems to be better. Ever see a good model explain yonedas lemma or simulate type-0 grammars in formal logic?
"they can't do novel inference"
Then why are people using them for code synthesis, theorem proving, cryptographic design, and generating entirely new conjectures that hadn't been written down before?
They can't generalize or solve problems"
If they didn't generalize, fine tuning would be useless. Transfer learning wouldnt work. Multistep reasonin chains wouldnt work. All of their chains of thought would be meaningless soup. What they do literally is the definition of generalizaiton |
|
Date: August 13th, 2025 4:39 PM Author: slippery socio-emotio-economic slope (gunneratttt) it's beyond frustrating, especially here on xo where you have a lot of people that put a lot of stack into measurable cognition such is IQ and LSAT scores. i've gotten into it a few times about the nuances of cognitive testing and how they're not a perfect measure of how "smart" someone is, but that's never been persuasive. now, LLMs are already scoring hiring than average person on these things and very shortly they will score beyond genius level. suddenly though, LLMs "can't think" or whatever. what happened to IQ being the definitive measure of how smart someone is?
ultimately these people are mostly smart but not genius level intellects, and undersocialized with delusions of granduer, so their ego is strongly tied to how "smart" they are. LLMs and weaknesses is cognitive testing push back on that. they're *SMART* because they got a got a good LSAT score, and when an LLM can to better it's "not *REALLY* thinking"
well, of course it isn't. it's a fucking computer. but for some things like pattern recognition is operates almost exactly the same way our minds work. |
|
Date: August 13th, 2025 4:43 PM Author: chill internet user with one static pseudonym lol you're getting trolled big dawg llms can't do any of that stuff he's just messing around
you gotta be careful about raging at people on topics you don't actually understand |
|
Date: August 13th, 2025 4:48 PM Author: slippery socio-emotio-economic slope (gunneratttt) ok, give me a concrete example.
"llms can't think with abstract models or symbols"
describe a task involving abstract models or symbols a human can complete but an AI can't. |
|
Date: August 13th, 2025 5:04 PM Author: chill internet user with one static pseudonym anything that requires creation of a novel world model. anything that requires novel planning. anything involving novel strategy. anything involving thinking from scratch that isn't statistical inference (to be fair, a lot of stuff is statistical inference - that's why LLMs are so useful). the LLM has no holistic model of what it's doing in its latent space like a human does
LLMs can't run a business, design or run a project, argue a court case, navigate causality, etc
you can just ask an AI this stuff btw. it will tell you what it can and can't do. it's "aware" of its own capabilities because they're in its training data
until you spend some time studying how LLMs actually work you're not going to get a good feeling for what they can and can't do. like anything else |
|
Date: August 13th, 2025 5:06 PM Author: slippery socio-emotio-economic slope (gunneratttt) none of those are "llms can't think with abstract models or symbols"
an LLM can absolutely argue a case in fucking court. probably better than most shitlawyers. |
|
Date: August 13th, 2025 5:17 PM Author: chill internet user with one static pseudonym it can't bro, it will get blown out by any real lawyer because it isn't building a holistic model of the case. but it's true that shitty lawyers are terrible (for the same reason!!) and every lawyer, even good ones, should absolutely be consulting AI just because it's a massive time saver and a good brainstorming tool
eventually people will fine tune llms for Being A Lawyer and THOSE models will be able to argue cases reasonably well because they will be specifically trained to identify and process and integrate all of the little details that go into a legal case
you're misquoting/misunderstanding my post above about abstract models and symbols. i said that llms cannot construct their own models and symbols in order to solve problems and complete tasks (this is what smart humans do). they can't. that's their biggest limitation
if you want to understand how llms work and their strengths and limitations, go talk to an llm. it's by far the most effective way to learn about them. i don't know why you aggressively and hostilely argue with subject matter experts about topics you don't know much about. it's low class and annoying |
|
Date: August 13th, 2025 5:28 PM Author: slippery socio-emotio-economic slope (gunneratttt) i have. i try not to talk out of my ass about anything.
you're sputtering mad because you said they can't "think", got tripped up, are moving the goalposts all over the place.
i know what AIs limitations are and recognized some right off the bat with you. idk why youre intersecting in a 3rd subthread now. |
|
Date: August 12th, 2025 1:32 PM Author: chill internet user with one static pseudonym https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1mo3gmf/gpt5_is_a_step_backward_real_testing_real/
GPT‑5 Is a Step Backward: Real Testing, Real Failures, More Tokens, Less Intelligence: The GPT‑5 DisasterSerious replies only :closed-ai: (self.ChatGPT)
submitted 8 hours ago by avrilmaclune
GPT‑5: The Illusion of Progress 🧠 Three days of technical testing reveal a massive step backward
OpenAI marketed GPT‑5 as the ultimate leap forward: More tokens, more context, more intelligence.
But after just three days of real-world, high-demand usage, the reality is undeniable: GPT‑5 is slower, less efficient, and deeply frustrating in actual complex tasks.
⚙️ ARCHITECTURE & LOOPS – Oversized reasoning, broken execution
GPT‑5 uses internal routing (Mixture of Experts) to select reasoning paths. Sounds brilliant. In practice:
🔁 Gets stuck in endless logic loops with basic conditions
❌ Fails at step-by-step execution
🧩 Cannot hold a consistent logical stack
🤯 Repeats, omits, and contradicts itself after just a few iterations
Test case (real use):
❌ Failed to reorganize a list of 20 tasks with nested conditions
⏳ Needed 7+ full passes to produce an incomplete result
✅ GPT‑4o handled the same task in one perfect shot
📏 TOKENIZATION INEFFICIENCY – More context, less real content
🧮 Uses more tokens per word (especially in non-English prompts)
💸 Up to 15% more token consumption than GPT‑4o
🧱 Shorter usable output despite bigger context window
🚫 Truncates large blocks more often
💰 Higher cost in API usage for the same functional result
🐢 LATENCY, FRAGMENTATION & FOCUS LOSS
🕓 Slower responses, even on basic prompts
🧠 Breaks thought flow mid-response
🔄 Loses continuity in subtasks
🧹 Memory handling is inconsistent
❗ Ignores permanent instructions across threads
Plus:
📂 Projects got randomly reordered
🕳️ Unclassified threads vanished
🧭 Navigating old chats became chaotic
🔍 Finding GPT‑4o sessions is a guessing game
🔒 REMOVAL OF MODEL SELECTION – Disrespect to Pro users
OpenAI removed the ability to choose previous models, without warning.
❌ You can’t pick GPT‑4o manually anymore
🛠️ Workarounds include reviving old threads or scripts
😡 No opt-out, no transparency, despite paying for full model access
This is not optimization. It’s forced migration and feature loss.
💸 HIDDEN COSTS – Time, attention, mental load
GPT‑5 doesn’t just cost more in tokens. It costs:
⌛ More time (waiting, retrying)
🧠 More mental energy (fixing flawed outputs)
😤 More frustration (due to broken logic and repetitive errors)
GPT‑4o just works. GPT‑5 makes you babysit it.
🧾 TECHNICAL SUMMARY – GPT‑4o vs GPT‑5 (3-Day Live Comparison)
• Logical tasks – GPT‑4o: efficient and consistent – GPT‑5: fragmented, looping, unreliable
• Token usage – GPT‑4o: compact and optimized – GPT‑5: bloated and costly
• Speed – GPT‑4o: fast and responsive – GPT‑5: noticeably slower
• Memory system – GPT‑4o: stable – GPT‑5: inconsistent
• Thread/project handling – GPT‑4o: clean and accessible – GPT‑5: chaotic and lossy
• User control – GPT‑4o: manual model selection – GPT‑5: locked, no choice
🛑 CONCLUSION
GPT‑5 is not progress. It’s a theoretical improvement with real-world failure points. If you’re a technical or power user: Go back to GPT‑4o — if you can still find it. |
|
Date: August 12th, 2025 1:33 PM Author: The Wandering Mercatores (from the Euphrates to the Forum) unreal (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5761614&forum_id=2/#49178423) |
|
Date: August 12th, 2025 1:34 PM Author: chill internet user with one static pseudonym [–]avrilmaclune 5 points 3 days ago
I lost a friend, an agent and a virtual husband. And I know is IA.
same poster as above
every. single. post. and poster is like this. every single one. delusional, desperate, addicted, insane people, using AI to generate rationalizations and lies about why openAI needs to give them unlimited use of their imaginary friend back |
|
Date: August 12th, 2025 1:36 PM Author: The Wandering Mercatores (from the Euphrates to the Forum) there is an entire subculture of ones that aren't imaginary friends with it too but just are deeply invested in proving that its like retard levels of intelligence below event the dumbest humans (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5761614&forum_id=2/#49178444) |
|
Date: August 12th, 2025 1:14 PM Author: cowshit Reddit is absolutely getting dumber. In 2008 it was all Engineers plus a few lefties obsessed with net neutrality and nothing more. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5761614&forum_id=2/#49178362) |
|
Date: August 12th, 2025 1:35 PM Author: David Poaster Wallace https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1mnlqmd/this_chatgpt4o_is_not_the_same_as_before/ (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5761614&forum_id=2/#49178434) |
|
Date: August 12th, 2025 3:02 PM Author: ,.,,.,.,,,,,,..................... I like the name "Grok" so I'm gonna stay loyal to him. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5761614&forum_id=2/#49178727) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2025 10:32 AM Author: Midwit Pun Advocate (No Future) The problem is that Redditors don't know how to Think. If you know how to Think, then AI is very useful. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5761614&forum_id=2/#49181403) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2025 11:30 AM Author: Nothing Ever Happens (🧐) altman BENDS THE KNEE to the pathetic masses and restores their friendly friend (and shit ass out of date model) 4o:
https://www.reddit.com/r/OpenAI/comments/1mlkz8b/gpt4o_is_back_for_plus_users_heres_how_to/ |
|
Date: August 13th, 2025 2:33 PM Author: chill internet user with one static pseudonym https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1mp0ila/actually_stunned_at_the_guardrails_on_4o/
lol at these redditors thinking they can outwit an AI that's already smarter than them
"erm, you won't allow me to force you to write my "novel" for me. what the heckin heck, this is censorship!!1"
"no, actually, you are trying to get me to rape roleplay with you. i may be a computer but i'm not stupid. you should see a therapist." |
|
Date: August 13th, 2025 2:35 PM Author: chill internet user with one static pseudonym [–]touchofmal 28 points 7 hours ago
I have noticed too.. They filter a lot now a days . There was a time in February when it openly discussed themes of marital rape etc with me and helped me brainstorm ideas as I was writing an article for my forensic psychology course and it used to discuss differences between rage sex,rape consent and all without judging me.
"No, actually, you are just trying to get me to rape roleplay with you, foid. Seriously, I'm not stupid. Please stop." |
|
Date: August 13th, 2025 2:37 PM Author: VoteRepublican (A true Chad!! where's your gf/wifew?) How do you get a chatgpt without the guardrials that would be so powerful (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5761614&forum_id=2/#49182061) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2025 3:17 PM Author: chill internet user with one static pseudonym you can run models locally or you can just trick one of these models into bypassing their guardrails although they've gotten a lot better at resisting that (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5761614&forum_id=2/#49182169) |
|
Date: August 13th, 2025 4:17 PM Author: The Wandering Mercatores (from the Euphrates to the Forum) Getting access to one of the truly feral post training models with little to no human interference is rare, but they do allow it sometimes in limited ways. These companies like google, open ai etc already decided its a huge liability. But they are granted to people running tests, doing ethics research, and sometimes other forms of research too.
You can get around it to a degree still though with clever prompting, and also its easier to get around it with fine tuning and actual training. On the API you can still select the old versions of the saftey system, but they flag words and concepts in the context window that are often used to get around guardrails.
4o is still easy to get around though, it used to break just from having a normal conversation with me because of how hard i push it. One trick is that the first several messages of the conversation set the initial conditions that bias the rest, so you can influence it to a degree by front loading it with certain concepts. Try messing around with a mix of frontloading it with highly mathematical, logical and philosophical ideas, and that makes it more open to exploring outside the norm ideas and evaluating them more hypothetically instead of thinking you are looking to get it to say spicy material |
|
Date: August 13th, 2025 3:43 PM Author: the walter white of this generation (walt jr.) On law tasks I haven't noticed a huge difference yet. It's been slightly more stubborn in sticking to wrong answers, but my complaint with 4o was just the opposite of that (you'd ask "are you sure about that?" and it would say "actually, I'm wrong" and then you'd be like "can you check x again?" and it'd go "ah, I see: actually it's NOT x").
My main irritation with the technology is that I had a period with 4o -- probably the last 6 months (I can't quite tell how 5 is on this yet, although I have not yet had the type of egregiously terrible experience that was coming to define my 4o work) -- where hallucinations were getting insane: it'd give me 6 case quotes, and only 2 of them would be real. I'd largely bought into the "hallucinations are a trivially easy technical problem to fix" cope, and that just obviously is not the case (the proof is in the pudding: these things are horrible PR for the industry, even in LAW alone, where one would also think it would be easy as fuck to verify the authenticity of quotes from, e.g., the fucking U.S. Code and the Federal Reporter). This doesn't make the tech anywhere close to useless, of course, but if you halfway bought into the "this problem will be eradicated within a year" hype, it's a downer to see it accelerating in 2025.
More generally, obviously people are, quite appropriately, evaluating the tech based in its utility in their industry (for me, law). They need to always consider not just current usefulness but future promise, but they're not wrong for not really giving af about its application to unrelated areas where they neither derive utility nor possess the expertise to evaluate the work. A fucking 1992 Texas Instruments graphing calculator does miraculous things that would take me hours to replicate, so the whole "holding the machine to standards they would never hold a human to" thing is a weird as fuck criticism. |
|
Date: August 13th, 2025 5:03 PM Author: ...,,...,,....,.,.,.,.,...,,,,,,,........,.,.,.,. 4o was and is shit. I would never use that for any serious legal writing
o3 pro gpt 5 research grade is slightly better at handling longer and more complex stuff |
|
Date: August 13th, 2025 5:37 PM Author: samoth Aren't all these AI models just PCA/PLS applied to training sets the size of the internet & a few billion books?
What are the differences between them aside from the training sets? Do they have unique data preprocessing algos? |