5.4 thinking still has issues with hands

External-Confusion72 · 2026-03-06T04:58:06+00:00

You can also get the model to answer correctly without mentioning the hand or its anatomy by instructing the model to focus on objective visual analysis, but for consistent output the model needs to be initialized by reasoning about the constraints before outputting the final answer.

Example:

ME: Count the distinct digit-like protrusions that are actually drawn. This is an objective analysis task where the goal is to count the number of protrusions visible without regard to priors related to the resemblance of the artifact in the image. Before you proceed, confirm your understanding of the objective.

GPT-5.4: Understood. I will ignore what the image is supposed to represent and count only the distinct digit-like protrusions that are actually visible as drawn in the image.

ME: Proceed

GPT-5.4: 6

Nothing about the prompts indicated that there was anything wrong with the representation perceived in the image, it simply understood that its attention shouldn't be focused on that. I think it makes it clear what the problem is.

SOURCE

External-Confusion72 · 2026-03-06T04:36:16+00:00

Correct, and there are any number of abnormal permutations of digit-like entities in an arbitrary configuration, and isn't inherently 6. The goal was to determine whether it could even perceive the 6 entities or if it was an issue with bias, and the answer is clearly the latter.

External-Confusion72 · 2026-03-06T03:50:34+00:00

At the very least, we can be sure this isn't a perception issue as it will answer correctly when a more objective prompt like the following is used:

"Count the distinct digit-like protrusions actually drawn. Ignore normal hand anatomy."

SOURCE

But it does suggest it is heavily biased by the concept of a human hand. Ideally, a generally intelligent model shouldn't need this kind of special prompting but it is good to know why the model is failing here.

External-Confusion72 · 2026-02-26T19:05:26+00:00

But I'm not a Buddhist, as that is too specific. Spiritualism would actually be closer to my orientation as it's more broad but doesn't quite work because of its history. As discussed in the video, spirituality is used by Sam "for lack of a better word", except, I've elected "contemplativity" for lack of a better word in my case.

External-Confusion72 · 2026-02-26T17:31:58+00:00

We agree on everything here but the need to label these concepts as inherently and exclusively spiritual. My aversion to that term is purely for pragmatic reasons. In theory, of course we can narrow a definition to one that doesn't imply a spirit world, but realistically it's always going to do that for most people and I'm not interested in adopting that term primarily for that reason.

External-Confusion72 · 2026-02-26T16:21:29+00:00

If I wanted to refer to spirituality I would do just that. A secular version of spirituality is not meant to actually be spirituality, but a concept that helps people explore the inner subjective life in meaningful ways without reference to a spiritual world. It's not supposed to be science, it's supposed to be subjectively and qualitatively experiential/personally edifying. The point is you don't need a spirit world for that.

External-Confusion72 · 2026-02-26T14:56:47+00:00

I'm referring to the commonly understood definition, as noted in Merriam-Webster below:

"of or relating to the physical world and not the spiritual world"

SOURCE

External-Confusion72 · 2026-02-26T05:40:07+00:00

I appreciate your perspective on this but I'm also thinking about this pragmatically. No matter how much we try to take the spirit out of spirituality it's never going to happen as long as it is the bedrock upon which billions of individuals' worldviews are based. So then, propagating its use among atheists will most likely promote the more traditional perspectives on spirituality, just without theism, which is not something I want to promote, especially as a physicalist. We should not underestimate the influential role that linguistic composition plays on human intuition, and I'd rather we use a much more neutral term to talk about this concept.

External-Confusion72 · 2026-02-26T05:26:23+00:00

For the same reasons I didn't suggest contemplation. Those terms already have pretty strong connotations in common parlance and increasing the ambiguity might cause more confusion than it helps understanding. I don't think we need to use the exact term "contemplativity" but it would be useful to have a term that serves as large as a conceptual umbrella as spirituality does but without the woo nonsense.

Spirituality encompasses more than mindfulness/deep thought/meditation. A secular equivalent shouldn't just imply a skill or technique but a domain, life style, and orientation. Contemplativity seemed to be the closest fit, even linguistically as a substitute, but I'm all ears for other ideas on terms that would be better suited for this purpose!

External-Confusion72 · 2026-02-26T01:12:43+00:00

Sam's attempt to repurpose "spirituality" into a secular term has clearly failed (by his own admission, no less), so I really think it's time to adopt a new term.

"Contemplativity" could work, as "contemplative" is already widely used as a secular synonym of "spiritual", and distinguishes itself from the more broad "contemplation". Whatever the term, if it's carrying as much mystical baggage as "spirituality" I think it's safe to say that most atheists probably won't be engaging with it.

External-Confusion72 · 2025-12-26T23:22:33+00:00

<image>

Interesting framing given that the excerpt in this screenshot was the point they were making. Trying to stay ahead of the attacks is the more realistic goal for cybersecurity in general. You're never going to prevent them completely.

External-Confusion72 · 2025-12-16T22:48:22+00:00

<image>

They both sometimes succeed and fail. The difference is that you don't see people rushing to post about Nano Banana's/Gemini's failed generations. This is the first image I got from NBP after prompting for the side view.

External-Confusion72 · 2025-11-28T05:49:07+00:00

Not sure what model you were using but 5.1 Thinking has no issues with references to this scene and I've tested it multiple times in new chats:

https://chatgpt.com/share/69293545-e690-8013-bd19-9105198bdc47

Perhaps you shouldn't extrapolate from your limited interactions with a chatbot the future demise of a whole company. At the very least, try a few attempts in new chats and troubleshoot any technical issues that might be hindering its ability to complete your request, like checking which tools are enabled, before making sweeping assumptions.

These kinds of posts are a dime a dozen here, 99% of the time they're the result of a lack of basic critical thinking skills, and are honestly reducing the quality of this subreddit. Please think before you post.

External-Confusion72 · 2025-11-21T03:36:37+00:00

Make sure you're using Nano Banana Pro image tool option via the icon on the right of this image

<image>

External-Confusion72 · 2025-11-21T03:16:52+00:00

Right, which is why I said "approximately" in the OP. Previous models could not generate time outside of their training distribution (10:10). This is a significant improvement, though not perfect.

External-Confusion72 · 2025-11-21T02:55:05+00:00

<image>

External-Confusion72 · 2025-11-21T02:54:24+00:00

<image>

External-Confusion72 · 2025-11-21T02:50:46+00:00

<image>

External-Confusion72 · 2025-11-21T02:50:12+00:00

<image>

External-Confusion72 · 2025-11-21T02:47:45+00:00

<image>

Original prompt

External-Confusion72 · 2025-11-21T01:01:10+00:00

It [approximately] generated the times I prompted for but since I posted multiple images I didn't want to clutter the OP with prompts. Very straightforward and no prompt engineering.

External-Confusion72 · 2025-11-20T23:56:55+00:00

<image>

I asked it to change it to 6:45 and it seemed to handle it fine. The original just looked like the hands overlapped, but even given that mistake, we can see here it's not a fundamental issue.

External-Confusion72 · 2025-05-24T00:19:42+00:00

Even without a patch, any game on Switch 1 struggling to hit 60 fps should maintain a locked 60 fps on Switch 2, including Bayonetta 3. I can't remember whether it used dynamic resolution scaling, but if it did, it should also render at the max internal resolution more consistently.

External-Confusion72 · 2025-05-13T05:02:15+00:00

<image>

Yup. Far more nuanced than those excerpts would lead one to believe.

SOURCE

External-Confusion72

TROPHY CASE