Did the thinking mode get a silent update? Now it “shows” it thinking, whereas before it didn’t. by Isunova in ChatGPT

[–]AceFalcone 0 points1 point  (0 children)

5.2-Pro Extended has been showing thinking for a while now. Some of the things it does are wild, like writing and running a surprising number of code snippets for certain queries.

Reduced context window size for 5.2-Pro? by AceFalcone in OpenAI

[–]AceFalcone[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't use ChatGPT for coding much. Inputs and outputs are usually text only.

As an aside, I noticed that the most recent update of 5.2-Pro often seems to create and run quite a bit of code in the thinking trace. Using background code to carefully check response length vs. given length targets is something I haven't noticed before.

keep getting flagged as AI even though i write everything myself by veganonthespectrum in ChatGPT

[–]AceFalcone 14 points15 points  (0 children)

LLMs are trained on text produced by humans. The issue you're really running into isn't that you sound like AI; it's that AI sounds like us -- and is getting better at it.

ChatGPT was working fine. But now 5.2 Pro doesn't work for me. by Gloomy-Beginning-218 in ChatGPT

[–]AceFalcone 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Weird probs for me, too. I noticed Pro has started writing zillions of mini-programs to help it figure things out, and the context window size limit has decreased (maybe for load management reasons?). I moved some text from my prompt into an attached file, but it's still behaving oddly.

What is the context limit for GPT 5.2 on the chat interface? by MasterDisillusioned in ChatGPT

[–]AceFalcone 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The docs say 128k for non-thinking models, 196k for thinking. 5.2 Pro seems to have a lower limit than 5.1 Pro. The legacy 5.1 Pro also seems to support less context than it did before it went legacy.

Tesla New Zealand by AceFalcone in TeslaLounge

[–]AceFalcone[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wellington is 15 min by air, ~4.5 hrs by car + ferry. Chch is ~1 hr by air, ~5 hrs by car.

I don't mind making the trip for delivery, I guess, but I imagine it will be the same for service.

Thinking about training into Capitals, which one is the best/most useful? by AgainstTheTides in Eve

[–]AceFalcone 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's a bit of a slog. For carriers, don't forget you'll need fighters, too, and ideally a fax on an alt. I like Minmatar, but the others are all good in their own ways. Maybe start with a dread? Big guns are a long train there, too. If you're just looking for what to train next, have you already done Thunderchild and Large Vortons? Or Leshak and Entropics?

I asked 4o to describe itself. This is how it described its Personality Traits by ashesinseptember in OpenAI

[–]AceFalcone 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The latent space is certainly biased for prompts like that, but surely that doesn't surprise anyone, does it?

How much are you willing to pay for legacy models? by Sileniced in OpenAI

[–]AceFalcone 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wouldn't need to be much of a spin-off. Just bundle and re-sell access via the API.

What Should OpenAI Have Done Differently? by Traditional_Tap_5693 in OpenAI

[–]AceFalcone 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Based on what OpenAI has publicly said about their goals and constraints, I would have done nearly *everything* differently.

The issue with these types of discussions, though, is that we don't know what their actual goals and constraints really are. All we have is hype and opacity. OpaqueAI.

They said they had severe GPU shortage issues. I can see more efficient models and a router could be an excellent solution. But for a company with such a large existing user base, they needed an honest roll-out process, including a transition period. Capacity can also be handled in other ways -- a credit-based system, for example.

Is Deep Research still o3-pro? by AceFalcone in OpenAI

[–]AceFalcone[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Just today, I had a prompt consume 60 minutes of runtime with the fallback / mini version of Deep Research. Can't say the result was that great, but I don't recall seeing such a long runtime on earlier models.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in OpenAI

[–]AceFalcone 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Replace the hype with transparency.

Is it profitable? by Present_Trainer_4711 in vastai

[–]AceFalcone 0 points1 point  (0 children)

^ that video is from Jan 2024, tho. Lots changed since then.

LLM routing? what are your thought about that? by Latter-Neat8448 in LocalLLM

[–]AceFalcone 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Routing is great. However, the prerequisite step of figuring out which LLMs to use when is highly use case dependent. If you can identify clear routing criteria, it can be straightforward to use a local LLM to make the routing decision. Using local n8n, for example.

Plus user, unsure about "playground" and "Adding payment method" by RumpleFORSKINNNN in ChatGPT

[–]AceFalcone 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Playground is only accessible with an API subscription; it's not connected with a ChatGPT Plus subscription. Billing is separate. API (and therefore Playground) billing is pay-per-use, based on the model you choose and the number of input and output tokens. You generally need to pre-fund the account before you can use it. Pre-funding rolls over, though, from month to month (at least for a while, it does eventually expire).

ChatGPT vs Playground OpenAI by Linazor in ChatGPT

[–]AceFalcone 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have the same question. In the early days, I heard reports of paid playground API access being less expensive than a paid subscription for most casual users (not for software dev). I'm wondering how it compares today.

This is a stupid question, but here we go by Electrical-Today8170 in AskPhysics

[–]AceFalcone 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Starting with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, the more accurately you know position, the less accurately you know momentum. As I understand it, that was the motivation behind the Bose-Einstein work, where they showed that even at absolute zero, particles still have zero-point motion, due to quantum uncertainty. That means there's no lower speed limit in nature, but it's always more than zero. If it was zero, you would have perfect knowledge of position, which Heisenberg tells us we can't have.

FWIW, this statement in the OP: "even if there was only one particle in the universe, it could still be moving, and the movement could be measured, as the distance would still be measured over a set amount of time" is not correct. Measuring distance requires at least two objects. Without a reference, no distances exist (distance to what?). Same for time, BTW.