News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:GPT-5.1: A smarter, more conversational ChatGPT by 4b11b4 on Thursday November 13, 2025 @08:52AM (#45914910)
I'll respond to this bait in the hopes that it clicks for someone how to _not_ use an LLM..

Asking "them"... your perspective is already warped. It's not your fault, all the text we've previously ever seen is associated with a human being.

Language models are mathematical, statistical beasts. The beast generally doesn't do well with open ended questions (known as "zero-shot"). It shines when you give it something to work off of ("one-shot").

Some may complain of the preciseness of my use of zero and one shot here, but I use it merely to contrast between open ended questions versus providing some context and work to be done.

Some examples...

- summarize the following

- given this code, break down each part

- give alternatives of this code and trade-offs

- given this error, how to fix or begin troubleshooting

I mainly use them for technical things I can then verify myself.

While extremely useful, I consider them extremely dangerous. They provide a false sense of "knowing things"/"learning"/"productivity". It's too easy to begin to rely on them as a crutch.

When learning new programming languages, I go back to writing by hand and compiling in my head. I need that mechanical muscle memory, same as trying to learn calculus or physics, chemistry, etc.

Re:GPT-5.1: A smarter, more conversational ChatGPT by nkrisc on Thursday November 13, 2025 @09:51AM (#45915553)
> Language models are mathematical, statistical beasts. The beast generally doesn't do well with open ended questions (known as "zero-shot"). It shines when you give it something to work off of ("one-shot").

That is the usage that is advertised to the general public, so I think it's fair to critique it by way of this usage.

Re:GPT-5.1: A smarter, more conversational ChatGPT by the_snooze on Thursday November 13, 2025 @10:39AM (#45916173)
Yeah, the "you're using it wrong" argument falls flat on its face when the technology is presented as an all-in-one magic answer box. Why give these companies the benefit of the doubt instead of holding them accountable for what they claim this tech to be? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bBfYX8X5aU

I like to ask these chatbots to generate 25 trivia questions and answers from "golden age" Simpsons. It fabricates complete BS for a noticeable number of them. If I can't rely on it for something as low-stakes as TV trivia, it seems absurd to rely on it for anything else.

Re:GPT-5.1: A smarter, more conversational ChatGPT by ragequittah on Thursday November 13, 2025 @11:53AM (#45917184)
Whenever I read something like this I do definitely think "you're using it wrong". This question would've certainly tripped up earlier models but new ones have absolutely no issue making this with sources for each question. Example:

https://chatgpt.com/share/69160c9e-b2ac-8001-ad39-966975971a...

(the 7 minutes thinking is because ChatGPT is unusually slow right now for any question)

These days I'd trust it to accurately give 100 questions only about Homer. LLMs really are quite a lot better than they used to be by a large margin if you use them right.

Re:GPT-5.1: A smarter, more conversational ChatGPT by bgilroy26 on Thursday November 13, 2025 @11:38AM (#45916994)
I have a lot of fun creating stories with Gemini and Claude. It feels like what Tom Hanks character imagined comic books could be in Big (1988)

I play once or twice a week and it's definitely worth $20/mo to me

Re:GPT-5.1: A smarter, more conversational ChatGPT by hamburgererror on Thursday November 13, 2025 @09:53AM (#45915578)
I was not trolling actually, thanks for your detailed answer. I don't use LLMs so much so I didn't know they work better the way you describe.
Re:GPT-5.1: A smarter, more conversational ChatGPT by wrsh07 on Thursday November 13, 2025 @10:47AM (#45916289)
Fwiw, if you can use a thinking model, you can get them to do useful things. Find specific webpages (menus, online government forms - visa applications or addresses, etc).

The best thing about the latter is search ads have extremely unfriendly ads that might charge you 2x the actual fee, so using Google is a good way to get scammed.

If I'm walking somewhere (common in NYC) I often don't mind issuing a query (what's the salt and straw menu in location today) and then checking back in a minute. (Or.... Who is playing at x concert right now if I overhear music. It will sometimes require extra encouragement - "keep trying" to get the right one)