[ShamelessC]

> No criticism at this particular thing, but it is a good opportunity to mention that GPT-5 only exists if you have non-public information.

What?

> Sure it does.

What? Contradicting yourself immediately?

> I mention because it is not a good sign that “people are getting this,” when youtubers are using headlines like “What GPT-7 means for your sales leads!”

…what?

> The fallacy is kind of allowed by us who understand it better, when we accept semver from companies as actually being incremental, and accurate public information.

I don’t see how this follows from your previous points (if you can even call them that).

> It’s not like these models are all just matrices of weights, they are radical architectural experiments.

Aspects of both things are true. Also, this doesn’t follow from/connect with anything you said previously.

[b33j0r]

My only point was that people were reacting to future versions of a confidential product as if we know. I didn’t contradict myself by saying “obviously they are working on new versions.”

My point was that we have no idea what the new versions are.