Hacker News Reader

Comment by Rebuff5007 | Hacker News Reader

I for one can never get over the fact that Mira Murati was not laughed out of the room when she said -- with a straight face -- that GPT4 had high school level intelligence and the non-existent GPT5 will have PHD-level intelligence [1].

IMO -- this is not a serious company with serious people building an important long-lived product. This is a group of snake oil salesmen that are in the middle of the greatest grift of their careers. That, and some AI researchers that are probably enjoying limitless gpus.

[1] https://www.timesnownews.com/technology-science/next-gen-cha...

View on HN

> this is not a serious company with serious people building an important long-lived product. This is a group of snake oil salesmen

But that’s obviously not a fair description either, because they have the world-leading product in an intensely competitive field that does stuff nobody would have thought possible five years ago.

The marketing is obviously massive hyperbole bordering the ridiculous, but the idea that they haven’t produced something deeply serious and important is also ridiculous, to me.

The only (gigantic, huge, fatal—perhaps) problem they have at the moment is that their moat seems to only consist of a short head start over the competition.

But is it world leading?

https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/chatgpt-vs-g...

Gemini won this one in September. It won another one I read in March. I just use Gemini for free.

The whole industry is full of snake oil salesmen. Do you really think this [2] is not a hype bubble waiting to be turned into a tell-all docuseries?

They have produced something impactful sure, but I don't think their product is a tenth as valuable or "intelligent" as they are claiming it to be. There are too many domain-specific tools that are far superior to whatever pseudo-intelligence you get from chatgpt... what proof do we have that any industry has found material value from this chatbot?

[2] https://x.com/deedydas/status/1841670760705949746

Nice of her to think these advanced autocomplete models have any intelligence at all

I know right?! Now, all you have to prove is that humans are anything more sophisticated than that :)

Descartes did it 400 years ago

That doesn't seem far off to me. Having used GPT4 it seems similar to a high school student in abilities and Murati's actual quote was "The next iteration, GPT-5, is expected to reach the intelligence level of a PhD holder in specific tasks" which seems quite plausible. Note the "specific tasks" bit.

I currently can ask gpt4 to do a high school intelligence level task for me (financial data capture) so the issue?

For one thing high school is a level of education not a "intelligence level".

For another thing there is not a single google search result for the phrase "high school intelligence level task". Unless Google is malfunctioning it seems you are just making things up?

Don't shoot the messenger, that's someone else's wording not mine, I'm speaking to their claim.

I don't think this wording is something that needs to be analysed to death, after all someone will just move the goalposts (typically by those who want to place human intelligence on some podium as special).

This is a task I'd entrust a high school student to do (emphasis on student). They said high school intelligence not high school education.

A forum user above said they are not a serious company with serious people. Would a serious person with a serious interest in "intelligence" make up terms like "high school intelligence".

>>>This is a task I'd entrust a high school student to do (emphasis on student). They said high school intelligence not high school education.

I'm sure you don't actually believe all high school students are equally intelligent or on the same coursework track, or that all high schools teach the same courses with the same level of sophistication, so I'm not sure why you are defending the term "high school intelligence" or saying they even made a "claim".

I can't take you as a serious person if you think serious people are limited to talking in official terms. They can also talk generally and make assumptions, yes that is allowed.

At no point did I say that all students are at the same level.

I can't quite see what issue you have with the all of this, other than you don't like it because you don't like it.

>>>official terms

The issue isn't "official terms" the issue is nonsensical framing which is "not even wrong".

>>>At no point did I say that all students are at the same level.

Yet you used the term "high school intelligence level task".

you said the same thing twice.

I don't think so? There's a difference between :

1) "TERM X" is not real but I can see where you are coming from since other people believe in "TERM X".

and

2) You literally just made up "TERM X" on the spot to argue some other thing was true.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com