GPT-5 Thinking in ChatGPT (a.k.a. Research Goblin) is shockingly good at search

Re:GPT-5 Thinking in ChatGPT (a.k.a. Research Goblin) is sho... by larsiusprime on Monday September 08, 2025 @09:50AM (#45168255)

My contention is if it’s going to just give me a Wikipedia summary, I can do that myself. I just have greater expectations of “PhD” level intelligence.

If we’re going to claim to it is PhD level it should be able to do “deep” research AND think critically about source credibility, just as a PhD would. If it can’t do that they shouldn’t brand it that way.

Also it’s not like I’m taking Matzat’s word for anything. I can read the primary source documents myself! He’s also hardly an obscure source, he’s just not listed on Wikipedia.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:GPT-5 Thinking in ChatGPT (a.k.a. Research Goblin) is sho... by simonw on Monday September 08, 2025 @10:07AM (#45168464)

I suggest ignoring the "PhD level intelligence" marketing hype.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:GPT-5 Thinking in ChatGPT (a.k.a. Research Goblin) is sho... by magicalist on Monday September 08, 2025 @10:32AM (#45168807)

A couple of times when I've gotten an answer sourced basically only from wikipedia and stackoverflow, I've thrown in a comment about its "PhD level intelligence" when I tell it to dig deeper, and it's taken it pretty well ("fair jab :)"), which is amusing. I guess that marketing term has been around long enough to be in gpt5's training data.

[ Parent | on HN ]