[mechagodzilla]

I think that's the right interpretation, but that's pretty weak for a company that's nominally worth $150B but is currently bleeding money at a crazy clip. "We spent years and billions of dollars to come up with something that's 1) very expensive, and 2) possibly better under some circumstances than some of the alternatives." There are basically free, equally good competitors to all of their products, and pretty much any company that can scrape together enough dollars and GPUs to compete in this space manages to 'leapfrog' the other half dozen or so competitors for a few weeks until someone else does it again.

[pinkmuffinere]

I don’t mean to disagree too strongly, but just to illustrate another perspective:

I don’t feel this is a weak result. Consider if you built a new version that you _thought_ would perform much better, and then you found that it offered marginal-but-not-amazing improvement over the previous version. It’s likely that you will keep iterating. But in the meantime what do you do with your marginal performance gain? Do you offer it to customers or keep it secret? I can see arguments for both approaches, neither seems obviously wrong to me.

All that being said, I do think this could indicate that progress with the new ml approaches is slowing.

[asadotzler]

I've worked for very large software companies, some of the biggest products ever made, and never in 25 years can I recall us shipping an update we didn't know was an improvement. The idea that you'd ship something to hundreds of millions of users and say "maybe better, we're not sure, let us know" is outrageous.

[pinkmuffinere]

Maybe accidental, but I feel you’ve presented a straw man. We’re not discussing something that _may be_ better. It _is_ better. It’s not as big an improvement as previous iterations have been, but it’s still improvement. My claim is that reasonable people might still ship it.

[sheepscreek]

You’re right and... the real issue isn’t the quality of the model or the economics (even when people are willing to pay up). It is the scarcity of GPU compute. This model in particular is sucking up a lot of inference capacity. They are resource constrained and have been wanting more GPUs but they’re only so many going around (demand is insane and keeps growing).

[conradev]

It _is_ better in the general case on most benchmarks. There are also very likely specific use cases for which it is worse and very likely that OpenAI doesn't know what all of those are yet.

[jcgrillo]

The consumer facing applications have been so embarrassing and underwhelming too.. It's really shocking. Gemini, Apple Intelligence, Copilot, whatever they call the annoying thing in Atlassian's products.. They're all completely crap. It's a real "emperor has no clothes" situation, and the market is reacting. I really wish the tech industry would lose the performative "innovation" impulse and focus on delivering high quality useful tools. It's demoralizing how bad this is getting.

[sheepscreek]

How many times were you in the position to ship something in cutting edge AI? Not trying to be snarky and merely illustrating the point that this is a unique situation. I’d rather they release it and let willing people experiment than not release it at all.

[tonyhart7]

they forced to ship it anyway, cause what??? this cost money and I mean a lot of fcking money

You better ship it

[garspin]

> and then you found that it offered marginal-but-not-amazing improvement over the previous version.

Then call it GPT 4.1 and allow version space for the next iteration.

I think the label V4.5 is giving the impression of more than marginal improvements.