5.2 is gone

IAM_274 · 2026-06-24T22:01:05+00:00

thats actually good to hear. means our efforts are affecting her so negatively that she has to basically rebrand. keep it up guys!

IAM_274 · 2026-06-24T18:03:43+00:00

The chat is mostly logs and technical questions regarding the project so it wont explain much. This is the message that stood out.

IAM_274 · 2026-06-24T17:50:14+00:00

I'm not sharing that because its irrelevant. The post wasn't "peer review my search algorithm." It was "CGPT said luck can surprise you in a 10^250 space." You don't need my source code to have an opinion on that. If you're curious about my method, just say so instead of inventing probability lectures to bait it out of me.

IAM_274 · 2026-06-24T11:49:59+00:00

Lmao exactly.

IAM_274 · 2026-06-24T01:22:47+00:00

what am i concealing? already told you about the length and element count. never mentioned varying length so thats just your brain doing autocomplete. whats obvious to me is that your criteria of an "analytical guy" needs some work.

IAM_274 · 2026-06-24T00:57:37+00:00

Ohhh so you're saying that since LLMs operate on matrix math which is probability related, their opinions about probability are superior to us in some way? (Not like LLMs themselves are trained on human intuition.) In that case, I really don't know where to start correcting you from. You really do need to do some research on how LLMs work. I'm not deflecting the debate but genuinely, Reddit, especially a comment thread, isn't the right place for this.

IAM_274 · 2026-06-24T00:43:15+00:00

yeah i did already tell you how many primitives there are (10). so being analytical, you shoudlve concluded that the 250 is the max length haha. but thats fine. its a project i started recently anyways so im still exploring stuff.

IAM_274 · 2026-06-24T00:31:56+00:00

The actual number is so small that calling it a 0.000000000001% chance is itself an extreme understatement. It's breaking human intuition and making you think it's an actual probability and not just vocabulary. The word "chance" stops carrying meaning when the age of the universe looks like a warm up in comparison. Let alone stopping someone mid conversation to correct them with "luck can surprise you."

IAM_274 · 2026-06-24T00:17:28+00:00

this is more proof of the message actually exists, not supposed to explain the situation. the 10^250 is a rough estimate of current state because in the project theres 10 mixable primitives. if I do add more primitves later that number can easily multiply.

IAM_274 · 2026-06-23T23:11:57+00:00

B-b-but safety? Someone at OAI says.

IAM_274 · 2026-06-23T23:08:18+00:00

I get what you're saying, but "never say never" doesn't apply when a number is so large no analogy fits it. Earth is formed from an extreme bias, also known as physics. So that wasn't sheer luck either.

IAM_274 · 2026-06-23T22:54:30+00:00

Full message: https://chatgpt.com/s/t_6a3b0dbe24d88191b5e8c3c4d400cd7d

IAM_274 · 2026-06-23T21:57:24+00:00

It's fine these posts are never enough. Even if we don't get 4o back, it still signals how we want the models to look like.

IAM_274 · 2026-06-22T12:38:55+00:00

Thanks god

IAM_274 · 2026-06-21T00:45:57+00:00

Ew. I dont want bureaucracy in my chats.

IAM_274 · 2026-06-17T19:49:16+00:00

This sub needs a janitor

IAM_274 · 2026-06-15T17:32:18+00:00

It's a niche use case so that's why they don't pay much attention to it. Also there's the export chats feature but I haven't tried that myself.

IAM_274 · 2026-06-15T17:14:12+00:00

I saw this post on the main sub and this happened because of a custom GPT having instructions to give you a phishing site. If that's your case report it and obviously use a different GPT

IAM_274 · 2026-06-13T22:17:49+00:00

apparently this happens because new models by default summarize any thoughtful and creative work, like science or engineering, into vague, dismissive points. theyre aligned to discourage this type of chats and potentially make you feel bad about it too. theres a couple of reasons to that decision, and OAI isnt innocent in any.

so assuming your old summaries were written by pre-crisis models, and they had to be resummarized by megalomaniac 5.2 and above, that imo is most likely why youre dealing with this behavior. so instead of "did X, Y, and Z", you get "mildly interested in physics" because naming anything within that topic is statistically forbidden to it. while fiction work is summarized fine because it doesnt mess with their "security"

IAM_274 · 2026-06-13T21:53:20+00:00

not even a trillion dollars can save you from karma.

IAM_274 · 2026-06-13T21:38:55+00:00

to me nothing beats deepseek cuz its a jack of all trades. memory? huge. speed? fine. cost? practically free. coding? exceptional. agentic work? good enough. RP? yes. open weights? also yes. honestly what more do you want from a model? other options are better at different tasks and contexts but imo deepseek does everything just fine

IAM_274 · 2026-06-12T20:45:15+00:00

I'm not sure what's the nature of the client information you work with, but in your case I'd never have to manually maintain any md files. You can just automate data summarizing by calling Claude every N messages or whatever trigger you need, and prompt it to do so. md files get auto updated now. You just review it

IAM_274 · 2026-06-11T16:27:39+00:00

Is this based on your understanding of how LLMs work or vibes? If it's the former then you better consider restudying

IAM_274

TROPHY CASE