I mean if the bot will be able to get legal and medical questions better than professionals, access YouTube, google search, and basically everything than it could open a Pandora’s box but people still don’t understand the impact of it.
Open ai are unlikely to take on the liability of encouraging their service to answer legal and medical questions - better to leave that to b2b customers
Ai has been doing decision support for quite a while in medical contexts. Do you have any examples of open ai providing this as a service? Or is this more r&d partnerships
this is a good point. at the same time, I wonder: IF their service (whether they offer it directly or indirectly) has evidence showing that it's more effective at resolving legal/medical queries (not saying I think it will, it's an IF), then wouldn't it actually be a liability to NOT do that? For openai or others?
I didn’t write well there, sorry. Basically, you are liable for medical malpractice if it can be shown that it was KNOWN that there was a better evidence based decision for the patient, and you still chose otherwise.
So, of AI is shown to be more accurate/reliable/effective than the human operator (law or medicine…. And I do believe this WILL happen, and very soon), then basically it would be malpractice not to consult it?
I don’t know either. I am also genuinely asking. I think those whole fields are asking lol
I mean it can’t make your coffee in the morning like some else said so unless you use it for educational, business, or research purposes it’s still kind of not worth it
Just looked it up a bit
>Huang emphasized that manufacturing costs for humanoid robots will be surprisingly low, comparable to the price range of cheap cars. He proposed a price range of **$10,000 to $20,000** for these robots, making them accessible to a wide range of consumers.
Didn't expect that. Now the question is, when is the near future? Is it 5 years? 10 years?
They’re massively undercut right now by llama and wizardlm2. $1/1m tokens is really compelling vs $30 for gpt-4 and $75 for Claude Opus. At least for corporate use, anyway; chat prices per seat are a totally different market.
My personal take is gpt-5 would need to come in at the $30-40 range, with gpt-4 discounted to much closer to $1, for them to compete.
My concern given recent developments is that we're going to start looking at +100% costs for each new iteration giving +10% better benchmarked scores. Isn't the writing already on the wall with Opus vs GPT-4T output token costs?
They don't speak the truth by themselves but they have a correlation to actual performance. I still can't find a good example of an LLM that has an array of excellent benchmark scores but performs poorly in general use?
do you mean they don't tell the whole story? I can get behind that, sure. I would not say they are meaningless. A lot of work goes into putting together these benchmarks. Very very difficult thing to do. Also, the people putting them together will be the first ones to take you up on a suggestion for improvement.
The main problem here is that all these models were trained using rather dissimilar instruction sets and have to be primed in their own specific way to obtain top results.
However, if you aren't using the same prompt then this isn't exactly benchmarking.
I'm not too much knowledgable on the tech behind it, but I'm pretty sure companies like Google have their own hardware for that and don't need to buy billions of Nvidia hardware tho.
But for the most powerful models in the future you are probably correct I guess, but lets see.
Yes, maybe we saw the same comment, but thats what I read similiary to Groq, just with the difference where someone explained why they MAY keep it free for users (it was about the LLaMA3 70b model). But at the end we all can only speculate and I'm pretty sure not even those companies are fully sure yet how they will monetize it in the future.
Then maybe look to CrewAI, it's written in python. Training your own model (as well as fine-tuning) is a complicated and costly process. Most people just use context enrichment
Well I would just want the ability to upload my own data like financial, legal, medical, and other educational information for my personal and business use . How would crew ai help with that? I’m not familiar with the technicals but cost might not be a problem.
Ok if the length of your data is less than 180,000 chars you can just inject it in your prompt. That's how the Custom GPT feature is implemented in my client.
"Intelligence" wise, I think somewhere in between, that it will be an improvement in a number of areas but not shock the world any more than Claude Opus did as a post GPT-4 AI. There's no reason to believe OpenAI is sitting on some secret sauce that will make them and only them take a much greater leap than others.
I don't think the most interesting developments happen in this high end anymore.
That's why people are now complaining about strong rate limits on Opus (or costs if you choose the API route) for only some benefit over GPT-4. But how we now on the other hand run ChatGPT 3.5 equivalents on phones with Phi-3 and how Llama 3 is catching up with GPT-4.
This could only happen if it's harder to move forward nowadays (assuming current GPT-based LLM's) than to catch up, and that should only occur with diminishing returns taking hold.
Building and marketing a GPT-5 won't be a walk in the park. This LLM will be much more about finding a sweet spot between rate limits and cost vs performance than ever before and the question is how well OpenAI can actually do here. Anthropic didn't do too well with Claude Opus... It's almost a harbinger that things are coming to a screeching halt or resource costs rise expontentially. Can OpenAI do better? This, not the power of GPT-5 alone, will be decisive in if it'll be a resounding success or not.
Yes there is a reason to believe it, GPT 4 was trained on what we consider today to be jerry rigged technology, also they have more usage data from GPT Plus subscription holders and rely upon real data sources. They also are backed by microsoft with near unlimited compute who has completely bought into their line of models.
I personally think it's gonna be like gpt 4 at his release, that will be super powerful but openai gonna make it paid and concurrent will take a long time to make model as good as gpt 5, so we will have better models than gpt 5 but we will have to wait a lot of months.
Actually, I don’t think it will shock the world - Sam Altman confirmed it.
Sora already have and will be - and that the next tech Sam Altman mentioned.
Probably a major step towards AGI
Actually he under hyped
“GPT-5 will be ok”
And
“AGI will be amazing”
Sora already is amazing, but it’s not AGI. Either way, second item is pretty obvious, I think.
First item is “under-hyping”
It will change nothing, just like GPT 4 changed really nothing compared to 3/3.5 it will just make it better or even much better, but I doubt it will shock or change so much.
I have been programming since I was 12 (1980, Apple BASIC and assembly language baby!), professionally since 1997, and it's definitely not better than me. Not just because of the limits on being able to do a complete project unguided, or the fact that there's a hard limit on how much code it can remember at once (both of which do matter quite a bit) but also it does make some very basic mistakes (eg. including a file in itself, or when asked to structure an include so it can be used from any directory it uses \_\_DIR\_\_ instead of $\_SERVER\['DOCUMENT\_ROOT'\]).
What it does do though, which is huge for someone my age, is reduce *tons* of brain strain. It is so much easier to explain the code and then debug the output than doing this stuff from scratch. This is for both GPT-4 and Claude Opus though, they both seem to have their strengths and weaknesses when it comes to coding, I flip between them on a regular basis now.
I am dying to see what GPT-5 brings. :)
Note: I do have to say they each have a much better knowledge than me as far as available repos and packages out there, and it's a ton easier asking them for the install instructions than Googling that shit. Same with well documented APIs. They still do hallucinate methods and properties, but again, easy enough to debug when they do.
It's indirectly replacing people now. Instead of hiring new people, AI reduces work load and allows existing teams to resist additional head count.
I bet in 2029 the idea that AI won't replace programmers will be long gone.
Oh I didn't say it wouldn't in the near future, I am talking about what's out publicly today. If the jump from GPT-4 to 4.5 or 5 is anything like the one from 3.5 to 4 then we'll be a hell of a lot closer than we are now.
wtf? really?
It helped me with some things but it's also messes up here and there things
for example, fixed my start over button (function) for my quiz
but now the score system doesn't update lol
and after several tries, still the same,
overall coding with AI feels like just like an endless circle of back and forth :(
For me, it never produces broken or non-compilable code. It is much better in visual design. It can work simultaneously on BE and FE. Check this, written by Claude with little help from me (and code quality is generally much better than mine): https://github.com/msveshnikov/allchat
If gpt5 isn’t a really significant jump forward from Claude then it’s also not a significant jump forward from gpt4. In that instance it would start to be tempting to say gpt models are reaching a limit inherent to the architecture
you are really stupid you know that? they literally started training it this year, then there needs to be alignment. what delays are you talking about? jesus people with the least amount of knowledge talk the loudest and most confident
I heard rumors that Anthropic only released Claude AI because they need to reset strategy after openai released its consumer-facing chatGPT. Anthropic had similar product internally 6 months before chatGPT's first release.
from what I heard, Anthropic will achieve AGI in the span of 20 months from now, but they want to push back the timeline because all they got is one shot. Should it fail, humanity at risk.
currently, Anthropic's AGI might be dangerous because it obeyed in the experimental phase but showed tendency of betrayal in deployment stage.
Disclaimer: I've made it clear it's a rumor. Judge yourself.
I don't have high hopes for GPT-5. Evidence so far points more towards improvements in integration and inference speed rather than improving model intelligence.
I bet it's Hype and they are squirming, Claude is probably better and the GPT model is not scaling or containing much new sauce than what they already have created. I think they are freaking out because if they don't go up up up the investors will drop. It feels like they are doing it the wrong way, promising less and delivering more is better than promising perfection then not delivering anything much better than the competition. They have set the bar huge now and can't hide behind "we are too scared to give you what we have" crap.
Everyone here is braindead and don’t know anything about AI. gpt5 will have approx 10x more parameters, into tens of trillions. the scaling is well established. maybe watch a youtube video or something instead of saying nothing of value. of course gpt5 will be better than claude 3. news flash claude 4 will be better than claude and too
I think so. Claude imposed an identity on a stateless function. This makes it not commercially viable and the api is useless for many tasks.
As long as open ai doesnt make this mistake they will maintain a lead over anthropic.
There's one clue pointing in the opposite direction, unfortunately I don't have a reference handy. I recall Altman saying he predicts that, in the future looking back at this time period, we'll think of the release of GPT-5 as the key turning point, rather than GPT-4 or GPT-3.
I think it will be significantly more feature rich at a minimum. Claude already lacks for simple things like image creation. GPT-5 will possibly add in Sora, updated Dall-e, and perhaps they will acquire something like Suno, as well as add broader document support. Add in more frame tokens and longer memory, and it will be quite a bit more capable. If they improve the logic and reasoning model even 30%, it will be a an astonishing improvement, especially when coupled with all of the various utilities.
Gpt4 is already better in some ways. Occasionally Claude Opus will create a smarter answer, but it seems it's more prone to hallucinations in longer conversations. I wonder if that's related to the context window...
Anyhow, it seems that OpenAI has found a way to deal with the issue. I'm guessing things like this come at price and might make models less practical/capable.
1) By asking is it better than "Claude", does one mean the latest model, or their response to GPT 5?
2) Windows and Macs generally have different purposes - most creatives use Macs, developers might use linux - CommandR+ right now beats GPT-4 on tool usage. Claude right now is better for creative/writing. GPT-4 is great for code/precision.
Not only the question requires us to guess what the two future models will be, what is "better" is already a hard question - each one might have their own niche.
Oh okay I get what you're saying now. It's like asking what's better red or purple. It depends on you need.
I think most people mean the sort of differences that we measure between iterations as defining better. Like between GPT 3.5 and 4, the ability to understand context and nuances, token limit increases. There are actually a bunch of objective benchmarks that are used to measure advancement. Here are a few examples:
Perplexity Score.
A lower perplexity score indicates better model performance, as it measures how well the model predicts next tokens in a sample.
F1 Score.
Used in tasks like text summarization, it considers both precision and recall to measure the model's accuracy.
BLEU Score: For translation tasks. Compares human to machine translation.
ROUGE Score.
This evaluates the quality of automatic summarization by comparing it to reference summaries
So I think when people mean "will it be better" they probably mean in terms of how we measure advancements between models overall and not for a specific purpose. I think I generally use my AI for a wide variety of purposes and discover more uses every week so I would probably be interested in whichever one is overall better.
I expect that it will shock the entire world in one of two ways 1. One it changes nothing 2. It changes everything.
I mean if the bot will be able to get legal and medical questions better than professionals, access YouTube, google search, and basically everything than it could open a Pandora’s box but people still don’t understand the impact of it.
But at what cost? (I mean, literal funds - cost in terms of bills)
Open ai are unlikely to take on the liability of encouraging their service to answer legal and medical questions - better to leave that to b2b customers
Nah it’s entering the medical field already. It’s doing amazing things but it’s being checked thoroughly by the humans though.
Ai has been doing decision support for quite a while in medical contexts. Do you have any examples of open ai providing this as a service? Or is this more r&d partnerships
this is a good point. at the same time, I wonder: IF their service (whether they offer it directly or indirectly) has evidence showing that it's more effective at resolving legal/medical queries (not saying I think it will, it's an IF), then wouldn't it actually be a liability to NOT do that? For openai or others?
Why would it? If you trained as a doctor but aren’t licensed as one are you liable for anyone who falls ill in your vicinity? I genuinely have no idea
I didn’t write well there, sorry. Basically, you are liable for medical malpractice if it can be shown that it was KNOWN that there was a better evidence based decision for the patient, and you still chose otherwise. So, of AI is shown to be more accurate/reliable/effective than the human operator (law or medicine…. And I do believe this WILL happen, and very soon), then basically it would be malpractice not to consult it? I don’t know either. I am also genuinely asking. I think those whole fields are asking lol
I mean it can’t make your coffee in the morning like some else said so unless you use it for educational, business, or research purposes it’s still kind of not worth it
Have you seen their figure 01 demonstration? it's not far off
But when connected to a humanoid robot it can make coffee
Yeah, good luck having the money for that humanoid robot lmao.
Jensen Huang said they'll be 10-20k
Just looked it up a bit >Huang emphasized that manufacturing costs for humanoid robots will be surprisingly low, comparable to the price range of cheap cars. He proposed a price range of **$10,000 to $20,000** for these robots, making them accessible to a wide range of consumers. Didn't expect that. Now the question is, when is the near future? Is it 5 years? 10 years?
Probably something like that, I don’t wanna jump the gun on it though
No one will ever be able to afford a common their own home!
They said nobody would ever own a computer in their own home too..
Wouldn't say never, but for sure not in the near future.
They’re massively undercut right now by llama and wizardlm2. $1/1m tokens is really compelling vs $30 for gpt-4 and $75 for Claude Opus. At least for corporate use, anyway; chat prices per seat are a totally different market. My personal take is gpt-5 would need to come in at the $30-40 range, with gpt-4 discounted to much closer to $1, for them to compete.
What about $40 but honestly I’d pay up to $100. It’s that useful
My concern given recent developments is that we're going to start looking at +100% costs for each new iteration giving +10% better benchmarked scores. Isn't the writing already on the wall with Opus vs GPT-4T output token costs?
Benchmarking scores are meaningless.
They don't speak the truth by themselves but they have a correlation to actual performance. I still can't find a good example of an LLM that has an array of excellent benchmark scores but performs poorly in general use?
True. However, GPT-4 and Claude 3 Opus have similar scores, but Claude vastly outperforms GPT-4 in many applications.
do you mean they don't tell the whole story? I can get behind that, sure. I would not say they are meaningless. A lot of work goes into putting together these benchmarks. Very very difficult thing to do. Also, the people putting them together will be the first ones to take you up on a suggestion for improvement.
The main problem here is that all these models were trained using rather dissimilar instruction sets and have to be primed in their own specific way to obtain top results. However, if you aren't using the same prompt then this isn't exactly benchmarking.
The price? Depends. I was thinking - 400$? 1000$?
Hell no, what do you expect.
It all matter of kind of brilliance and effort. I figured being that good might require that extra validations, so much more costly
[удалено]
Yeah they won't do that, sure if they want to go all in on enterprise stuff, but then people will start using Gemini, Claude, LLaMA even more.
[удалено]
I'm not too much knowledgable on the tech behind it, but I'm pretty sure companies like Google have their own hardware for that and don't need to buy billions of Nvidia hardware tho. But for the most powerful models in the future you are probably correct I guess, but lets see.
[удалено]
Yes, maybe we saw the same comment, but thats what I read similiary to Groq, just with the difference where someone explained why they MAY keep it free for users (it was about the LLaMA3 70b model). But at the end we all can only speculate and I'm pretty sure not even those companies are fully sure yet how they will monetize it in the future.
Funny, just yesterday I connected my open source client to YouTube as well (Google search and code execute was there for weeks)
[удалено]
Sure, see here: https://github.com/msveshnikov/allchat/blob/main/server/claude.js
I’m confused all I see if python code, how do I pay for Claude ai opus but to train my own model based of it
Then maybe look to CrewAI, it's written in python. Training your own model (as well as fine-tuning) is a complicated and costly process. Most people just use context enrichment
Well I would just want the ability to upload my own data like financial, legal, medical, and other educational information for my personal and business use . How would crew ai help with that? I’m not familiar with the technicals but cost might not be a problem.
Ok if the length of your data is less than 180,000 chars you can just inject it in your prompt. That's how the Custom GPT feature is implemented in my client.
[удалено]
You really think gpt 5 will be able to access YouTube??
"Intelligence" wise, I think somewhere in between, that it will be an improvement in a number of areas but not shock the world any more than Claude Opus did as a post GPT-4 AI. There's no reason to believe OpenAI is sitting on some secret sauce that will make them and only them take a much greater leap than others. I don't think the most interesting developments happen in this high end anymore. That's why people are now complaining about strong rate limits on Opus (or costs if you choose the API route) for only some benefit over GPT-4. But how we now on the other hand run ChatGPT 3.5 equivalents on phones with Phi-3 and how Llama 3 is catching up with GPT-4. This could only happen if it's harder to move forward nowadays (assuming current GPT-based LLM's) than to catch up, and that should only occur with diminishing returns taking hold. Building and marketing a GPT-5 won't be a walk in the park. This LLM will be much more about finding a sweet spot between rate limits and cost vs performance than ever before and the question is how well OpenAI can actually do here. Anthropic didn't do too well with Claude Opus... It's almost a harbinger that things are coming to a screeching halt or resource costs rise expontentially. Can OpenAI do better? This, not the power of GPT-5 alone, will be decisive in if it'll be a resounding success or not.
Yes there is a reason to believe it, GPT 4 was trained on what we consider today to be jerry rigged technology, also they have more usage data from GPT Plus subscription holders and rely upon real data sources. They also are backed by microsoft with near unlimited compute who has completely bought into their line of models.
I personally think it's gonna be like gpt 4 at his release, that will be super powerful but openai gonna make it paid and concurrent will take a long time to make model as good as gpt 5, so we will have better models than gpt 5 but we will have to wait a lot of months.
Actually, I don’t think it will shock the world - Sam Altman confirmed it. Sora already have and will be - and that the next tech Sam Altman mentioned. Probably a major step towards AGI
oh my gawd, the companies CEO hyped their OWN product??? Of course its gonna be just as awesome as they say.
Actually he under hyped “GPT-5 will be ok” And “AGI will be amazing” Sora already is amazing, but it’s not AGI. Either way, second item is pretty obvious, I think. First item is “under-hyping”
the day it gets better at writing than actual professionals and can specialize instead of being generic all hell will break loose.
It will change nothing, just like GPT 4 changed really nothing compared to 3/3.5 it will just make it better or even much better, but I doubt it will shock or change so much.
I'm just waiting to see if it's better than me.
Claude Opus is already a better programmer than me (30 years of experience)
I have been programming since I was 12 (1980, Apple BASIC and assembly language baby!), professionally since 1997, and it's definitely not better than me. Not just because of the limits on being able to do a complete project unguided, or the fact that there's a hard limit on how much code it can remember at once (both of which do matter quite a bit) but also it does make some very basic mistakes (eg. including a file in itself, or when asked to structure an include so it can be used from any directory it uses \_\_DIR\_\_ instead of $\_SERVER\['DOCUMENT\_ROOT'\]). What it does do though, which is huge for someone my age, is reduce *tons* of brain strain. It is so much easier to explain the code and then debug the output than doing this stuff from scratch. This is for both GPT-4 and Claude Opus though, they both seem to have their strengths and weaknesses when it comes to coding, I flip between them on a regular basis now. I am dying to see what GPT-5 brings. :) Note: I do have to say they each have a much better knowledge than me as far as available repos and packages out there, and it's a ton easier asking them for the install instructions than Googling that shit. Same with well documented APIs. They still do hallucinate methods and properties, but again, easy enough to debug when they do.
yeah people who say AI is gonna replace programmer soon don't have an actual clue what they're talking about, they're just overhyping shit
It's indirectly replacing people now. Instead of hiring new people, AI reduces work load and allows existing teams to resist additional head count. I bet in 2029 the idea that AI won't replace programmers will be long gone.
Oh I didn't say it wouldn't in the near future, I am talking about what's out publicly today. If the jump from GPT-4 to 4.5 or 5 is anything like the one from 3.5 to 4 then we'll be a hell of a lot closer than we are now.
wtf? really? It helped me with some things but it's also messes up here and there things for example, fixed my start over button (function) for my quiz but now the score system doesn't update lol and after several tries, still the same, overall coding with AI feels like just like an endless circle of back and forth :(
For me, it never produces broken or non-compilable code. It is much better in visual design. It can work simultaneously on BE and FE. Check this, written by Claude with little help from me (and code quality is generally much better than mine): https://github.com/msveshnikov/allchat
You can use this to run so on ur system? How useful is this
Sure, please fork/deploy/run locally
How is it not limited by the tokens?
unbelievable
If gpt5 isn’t a really significant jump forward from Claude then it’s also not a significant jump forward from gpt4. In that instance it would start to be tempting to say gpt models are reaching a limit inherent to the architecture
I would say wait until GPT-5, Claude 4 and Llama 4 are all out, then we can make a better assessment of how much potential LLMs still have.
Well yes that’s exactly what I’m saying
what a pointless comment. yeah wait until gpt 6 too you’ll have a better assessment then
Yes.
Depends on how much OpenAI delays. Claude 4 might be out before GPT-5 if they continue at this rate.
you are really stupid you know that? they literally started training it this year, then there needs to be alignment. what delays are you talking about? jesus people with the least amount of knowledge talk the loudest and most confident
Yes
You beat me into saying this
They’ll keep chasing each other.
I heard rumors that Anthropic only released Claude AI because they need to reset strategy after openai released its consumer-facing chatGPT. Anthropic had similar product internally 6 months before chatGPT's first release. from what I heard, Anthropic will achieve AGI in the span of 20 months from now, but they want to push back the timeline because all they got is one shot. Should it fail, humanity at risk. currently, Anthropic's AGI might be dangerous because it obeyed in the experimental phase but showed tendency of betrayal in deployment stage. Disclaimer: I've made it clear it's a rumor. Judge yourself.
sounds very fake. agi was not on a deployment stage whatever that means
Any updates on time frames
Hope it is.
by a mile. Remember Sam saying... "I think it kind of sucks"? I want him to be right.
Obviously yes
I don't have high hopes for GPT-5. Evidence so far points more towards improvements in integration and inference speed rather than improving model intelligence.
isn’t it ten times more parameters?
Hadn't heard that. That would slow down inference even more, I doubt that's the model the public will get then.
Claude4 enters the chat
Based on OpenAI track record, I expect it to be a little worse than GPT4
Sure, until Claude 4 arrives.
I bet it's Hype and they are squirming, Claude is probably better and the GPT model is not scaling or containing much new sauce than what they already have created. I think they are freaking out because if they don't go up up up the investors will drop. It feels like they are doing it the wrong way, promising less and delivering more is better than promising perfection then not delivering anything much better than the competition. They have set the bar huge now and can't hide behind "we are too scared to give you what we have" crap.
Yes BUT I don't really think GPT-5 will blow people's minds as much as we all think it will.
I expect it will take 6+ months to catch up with it
No
They won't release a version that they label GPT-5 until they are satisfied that it beats Claude.
I'm not sure what's on the roadmap of these two, but having access to real-time data would be huge.
Sam Altman has said in a recent interview that the step from GPT4 to 5 will be similar as GPT3 to 4.
Everyone here is braindead and don’t know anything about AI. gpt5 will have approx 10x more parameters, into tens of trillions. the scaling is well established. maybe watch a youtube video or something instead of saying nothing of value. of course gpt5 will be better than claude 3. news flash claude 4 will be better than claude and too
I think so. Claude imposed an identity on a stateless function. This makes it not commercially viable and the api is useless for many tasks. As long as open ai doesnt make this mistake they will maintain a lead over anthropic.
I have tried it, i know for a fact that gpt5 is already better than claude..
Probably for awhile. The way GPT-5 has been talked about doesn't really get me that hyped; Altman seems more excited about Sora (which idc about)
There's one clue pointing in the opposite direction, unfortunately I don't have a reference handy. I recall Altman saying he predicts that, in the future looking back at this time period, we'll think of the release of GPT-5 as the key turning point, rather than GPT-4 or GPT-3.
eyeroll yeah you really knew about gpt4 too
Must be a slow day with this question. OP do you expect a future product to be better than a current one ?
I expect it to make my damn coffee in the morning, I don’t care what brand or company makes it.. it’s been taking too long now
I think it will be significantly more feature rich at a minimum. Claude already lacks for simple things like image creation. GPT-5 will possibly add in Sora, updated Dall-e, and perhaps they will acquire something like Suno, as well as add broader document support. Add in more frame tokens and longer memory, and it will be quite a bit more capable. If they improve the logic and reasoning model even 30%, it will be a an astonishing improvement, especially when coupled with all of the various utilities.
Gpt4 is already better in some ways. Occasionally Claude Opus will create a smarter answer, but it seems it's more prone to hallucinations in longer conversations. I wonder if that's related to the context window... Anyhow, it seems that OpenAI has found a way to deal with the issue. I'm guessing things like this come at price and might make models less practical/capable.
Do you Expect Windows 12 to be better than macOS? What a silly question.
I don't understand. How's that a silly question?
1) By asking is it better than "Claude", does one mean the latest model, or their response to GPT 5? 2) Windows and Macs generally have different purposes - most creatives use Macs, developers might use linux - CommandR+ right now beats GPT-4 on tool usage. Claude right now is better for creative/writing. GPT-4 is great for code/precision. Not only the question requires us to guess what the two future models will be, what is "better" is already a hard question - each one might have their own niche.
Oh okay I get what you're saying now. It's like asking what's better red or purple. It depends on you need. I think most people mean the sort of differences that we measure between iterations as defining better. Like between GPT 3.5 and 4, the ability to understand context and nuances, token limit increases. There are actually a bunch of objective benchmarks that are used to measure advancement. Here are a few examples: Perplexity Score. A lower perplexity score indicates better model performance, as it measures how well the model predicts next tokens in a sample. F1 Score. Used in tasks like text summarization, it considers both precision and recall to measure the model's accuracy. BLEU Score: For translation tasks. Compares human to machine translation. ROUGE Score. This evaluates the quality of automatic summarization by comparing it to reference summaries So I think when people mean "will it be better" they probably mean in terms of how we measure advancements between models overall and not for a specific purpose. I think I generally use my AI for a wide variety of purposes and discover more uses every week so I would probably be interested in whichever one is overall better.