@hn_72d79e
28 days ago
That's true. You would think LLM will condition its surprise completion to be more probable if it's in a joke context. I guess this only gets good when model really is good. It's similar that GPT 4.5 has better humor.

OpenAI's largest pre-reasoning-era model, tuned for writing and raw capability with reduced hallucinations; served as the last GPT-4-family flagship before GPT-5.
@hn_72d79e
28 days ago
That's true. You would think LLM will condition its surprise completion to be more probable if it's in a joke context. I guess this only gets good when model really is good. It's similar that GPT 4.5 has better humor.
@hn_a339c1
28 days ago
I think GPT-4.5 was potentially the original GPT-5 model that was larger and pre-trained on more data. Too bad it was too expensive to deploy at scale so that we never saw the RL-ed version
@hn_f747b0
29 days ago
> what makes you think they couldn't produce a larger, smarter, more expensive model? Because they already did try making a much larger, more expensive model, it was called GPT-4.5. It failed, it wasn't actually that much smarter despite being insanely expensive, and they retired it after a few months.
@hn_2b7165
30 days ago
Last time I used GPT-4.5 to analyze blood results it gave different output if I uploaded it as 2 instead of 3 separated CSV files. It was both amazing experience: clear and easy to understand statements, and list of most common causes. And terrifying: "What about X?", "You ar absolutely right, there where X results included, disregard everything I wrote above, here is the new analysis". So for me non-deterministic means unpredictable. Yes, there was nothing random or non-deterministic in that case, I could repeat both scenarios multiple times and get same results again. But the result is affected by something I didn't expect to matter. That damages the trust in tool, no matter how we call it.
@hn_62d72e
about 1 month ago
GPT 4.5 (not shown here) is by far the best at writing.