The big, big mistake here was routing, imo. I wanna choose my intelligence level for a question, not have the machine make that decision for me. Sam Altman over-hyping stuff is not new. I have had GPT-5 do some very impressive work for me, I've also had it fall on its ass many times.
Also, that gpt-5-nano can't handle the work that gpt-4o-mini could (and is somehow slower?) is also surprising and bad, but they'd really painted themselves into a corner with the version numbers.
GPT-5 is a product that represents the needs of its users. They have 700M weekly active users, the vast majority of which just want a better google, therapist, life coach, or programming mate; not some superintelligent being that can solve the Riemann hypothesis.
The reason why true singularity-level ASI will never happen isn't because the technology cannot support it (though, to be clear: It can't). Its because no one actually wants it. The capital markets will take care of the rest.
Is it just me or is anyone else worried what will happen when the industry realizes LLMs are just not going to be the path to AGI? We are building nuclear power plants, massive datacenters that make our old datacenters look like toys.
We are investing literal hundreds of billions into something that is looking more and more likely to flop than succeed.
What scares me the most is we are being steered into a sunk cost fallacy. Industry will continue to claim it is just around the corner, more and more infrastructure will be built, even underground water is being rationed in certain places because AI datacenters apparently deserve priority.
Are we being forced into a situation where we are invested too much in this to come face to face with it doesn't work and it makes everything worse?
What is this capacity being built for? It no longer makes any sense.
1) Sam said only 7% of PLUS users were using thinking models. This auto-router is probably one of the biggest innovations for "normie use" ever.
2) Maybe I'm biased because I'm using GPT5-Pro for my coding, but so far it's been quite good. Normal thinking mode isn't substantially better than o3 IMO, but that's a limitation of data/search.
How can you say this about a product that has 700M MAU’s:
> As is true with a good many tech companies, especially the giants, in the AI age, OpenAI’s products are no longer primarily aimed at consumers but at investors
I used to say that the dumbest conversation about AI was about whether it was “actually intelligent”, but I was wrong: It’s the conversation about whether it’s “overhyped”.
Like, I don’t care how much Sam Altman hyped up GPT-5, or how many dumb people fell for it. I figured it was most likely GPT-5 would be a good improvement over GPT-4, but not a huge improvement, because, idk, that’s mostly how these things go? The product and price are fine, the hype is annoying but you can just ignore that.
If you feel it’s hard to ignore it, then stop going on LinkedIn.
All I want to know is which of these things are useful, what they’re useful for, and what’s the best way to use them in terms of price/performance/privacy tradeoffs.
GPT-4 seemed more snappy and faster...my experience with GPT-5 has been nothing short of poor. It takes too much time thinking. I'd rather have a generally good answer really fast than a very good one after 25-35s.
I've read plenty of criticism about ChatGPT 5, but as a Plus user I'm surprised nobody has brought this up:
Speed.
ChatGPT 5 Thinking is So. Much. Slower. than o4-mini and o4-mini-high. Like between 5 and 10 times slower. Am I the only one experiencing this? I understand they were "mini" models, but those were the current-gen thinking models available to Pro. Is GPT 5 Thinking supposed to be beefier and more effective? Because the output feels no better.
I use it several hours day. 5 is definitely slower. I’m not certain the quality has improved. I do hate that it keeps saying it’ll think even longer and take up to a minute to do stuff.
13 comments
[ 0.23 ms ] story [ 27.5 ms ] threadAlso, that gpt-5-nano can't handle the work that gpt-4o-mini could (and is somehow slower?) is also surprising and bad, but they'd really painted themselves into a corner with the version numbers.
The reason why true singularity-level ASI will never happen isn't because the technology cannot support it (though, to be clear: It can't). Its because no one actually wants it. The capital markets will take care of the rest.
We are investing literal hundreds of billions into something that is looking more and more likely to flop than succeed.
What scares me the most is we are being steered into a sunk cost fallacy. Industry will continue to claim it is just around the corner, more and more infrastructure will be built, even underground water is being rationed in certain places because AI datacenters apparently deserve priority.
Are we being forced into a situation where we are invested too much in this to come face to face with it doesn't work and it makes everything worse?
What is this capacity being built for? It no longer makes any sense.
2) Maybe I'm biased because I'm using GPT5-Pro for my coding, but so far it's been quite good. Normal thinking mode isn't substantially better than o3 IMO, but that's a limitation of data/search.
https://brokk.ai/power-rankings
> As is true with a good many tech companies, especially the giants, in the AI age, OpenAI’s products are no longer primarily aimed at consumers but at investors
Like, I don’t care how much Sam Altman hyped up GPT-5, or how many dumb people fell for it. I figured it was most likely GPT-5 would be a good improvement over GPT-4, but not a huge improvement, because, idk, that’s mostly how these things go? The product and price are fine, the hype is annoying but you can just ignore that.
If you feel it’s hard to ignore it, then stop going on LinkedIn.
All I want to know is which of these things are useful, what they’re useful for, and what’s the best way to use them in terms of price/performance/privacy tradeoffs.
Speed.
ChatGPT 5 Thinking is So. Much. Slower. than o4-mini and o4-mini-high. Like between 5 and 10 times slower. Am I the only one experiencing this? I understand they were "mini" models, but those were the current-gen thinking models available to Pro. Is GPT 5 Thinking supposed to be beefier and more effective? Because the output feels no better.
AI bros at work, I guess, and criticism isn't allowed?
So I should probably write "All hail OpenAI, hail Hydra"?