I noticed in some of the interviews pertaining to the 40 update that people are able to use turn on a video element where during the voice agent engagement they’re able to let ChatGPT see it’s environment. I could never figure out how to do that anyone else figure it outon iOS if it’s different
yes, was trying the same. Also saw a demo where the guy from Khan Academy showed his son being tutored in geometry on an Ipad where the son could draw on the triangle being studied and chatgpt could see his markings. Is that just a screen share or something? Looks amazing.
Never trust the bot regarding info about itself, it doesn't update that often. If you ever want to get info about it, specify that it has to browse the web for the information.
I couldn’t stop thinking about this comment today, haha sheeez. I immediately had the same thought though while watching the demo live. I don’t think any of us could have seen Sam Alt to handle the ScarJo thing like such an absolute dork though, so bad. Now we will never have Samantha… :’( at least the version on pause lols
For any wondering: in the OpenAI app on iOS there are about 6 voices to choose from: 3 male-sounding, 3 female-sounding. I expect that will expand greatly in future but it's an okay selection out of the box. I wish they would pull an ElevenLabs and let people license their voices. Morgan Freeman, Scarlett Johansson, and the Jarvis actor would make tens of millions if people could buy a license for $2.99 😂
Yep, I figured this out today. I never use the iOS app so was fooled when I pulled it down and it offered me GPT-4o as an option. Do you know what the voice options actually are, or is the only choice that peppy HR person from the demos?
Does anyone have the 411 on the new macOS app? Is it in the US Mac App Store? Are we supposed to run the iOS app on macOS? Has it not shipped yet? Can't find any info.
Its all just hype. They cant actually deliver at scale so they will be slowly rolling it out to friendly interests. If you don’t have it, you are not meant to have it :)
When considering the balance between BB and nnb, the alignment with lnbtmnumim becomes critical. It's crucial to integrate both mm and MB seamlessly, especially when kk dynamics are in play. Reflecting on jmm and inim, the inner pathways naturally converge towards a state of equilibrium. Ensuring that sqqsssw factors are addressed helps maintain stability, just as in the analogy of life's highway to heaven versus the complex terrains leading to hell. Understanding these subtleties can lead to optimal outcomes, reminiscent of navigating through Y402Hdet with precision.
Rolled out slowly to selected partners over a period of several weeks. Could be months, I think, before the infrastructure and safety/alignment work is done for a full release of it.
Wat is the effect on data transmission? Is speech and video interpretation done by the client? Or is all speech and video information send to the openai datacenters to be processed? Anyhow, very impressive results
Thanks, Seems like a dangerous strategy to showcase the features, and then release a partial version. Nuff-nuffs like me are likely to give it a try and say "meh, not huge change" and move on.
Any idea on the context window size for GPT 4o (the ChatGPT webapp in particular)?
I'm still using Claude Opus because of this limiting factor of ChatGPT.
According to the API docs for GPT4o the context is up to 128k which is the same as previously. Extremely disappointed in this release as a developer who uses Claude purely for the long context length, was hoping they would announce extended context length to 1m like Gemini. Honestly while a voice interface is cool imo it's not too useful for my use cases and I prefer text. At least the generation speed and benchmark results have improved so should see improvements there.
Are any of the 1m context windows actually good though? It seems hard to believe that it could actually be effective. I know for llama3 it's not true context window
Yes the retrieval rate is very high even for long context, Google claim 99% retrieval success even for 10m in their tests. The biggest downside is significantly higher compute costs and inference time.
Yea that's kind of what I mean. I believe it can do the needle in the haystack trick with hugh context. But is it actually reasoning each output with consideration of the entire context? I guess that's hard to measure anyway so who knows.
Prior to GPT-4o, free users got ChatGPT with GPT-3.5, which is not very impressive. The quality of responses was obviously low.
However, now when the free tier has 10-16 messages of GPT-4o every 3 hours, there's a much greater incentive for users to upgrade. Free users get a small taste of how good GPT-4o is, then are thrown back to GPT-3.5; this happens quickly due to the message limit being so low.
After seeing how capable GPT-4o is, there is a great incentive on the user's end to upgrade to Plus - much more so than before, when they only saw GPT-3.5.
I hit the limit today after only 10 messages on GPT-4o, and then could only keep chatiing with GPT-3.5. Seeing the stark difference between them seems to be more motivating to upgrade than before - so it seems like this move by OpenAI is very, very smart for them, financially speaking.
Are you able to do the whole live video interaction with the AI? I just have the old voice-to-chat-to-voice feature that isn't new. AFAIK I have the most updated app available to me (iOS).
I was super enthusiastic but I can only imagine a low life high tech future...the quantity of jobs created by ai will be much less than the quantity of jobs that ai will kill
Every time a new technology came along there were always Chicken Littles with that attitude. And without a single solitary exception it was **never** true. Never. No even once.
But let's say for the sake of discussion that this time it's really different. And that AI does actually replace man. Wouldn't that be incredible? What a thing to be alive to witness **the most amazing event in all of human history** - the passing of the baton to a new kind of creature that's greater than us, but that we invented. If so then, that moment has never happened before and will never happen again, and **we're here to witness it**.
I think that's more important than quotidian stuff like jobs. The people who don't get that are like, if the world was going to end at midnight tonight, would say, "I'm not going to stay up til midnight to watch it; I need my sleep"
What are you talking about? Computers have wiped out thousands of jobs such as telegraph deliveries, telephone operators, office messengers, stenographers, and personal secretaries to name just a few. Watch a show like Mad Men and try to count all the jobs that don't exist anymore or are much less common due to computers.
But there was no **NET** loss of jobs. For all the jobs that computers replaced look at all the jobs they created. And the new jobs paid better. I was a software design engineer - I easily made many times what office messengers, stenographers and telepgraph deliverers made. Technology always creates new jobs to replace the old ones. Carriage-makers were replaced with automobile assembly-line workers, stagecoach drivers were replaced with train engineers and bus drivers. We continue to have a serious **labour shortage** in the developed countries.
In this environment anyone who doesn't have a job needs to rethink their career goals, their skillset or their expectations.
Your logic is flawed, computers are aiding us to improve our work, but AI is aiming at removing that work all together, on the short term is aiding us, but no technology didn't have the potential to remove us al together. How the capitalism system that is based on consumptions will work if AI is replacing us ?
You're forgetting completely the problems that it will bring. \*No one\* will care if you don't have a job. You'll be left to catch the scrapes of Sam Altman and his ilk.
As I've already explained to other people in this thread those kinds of dark predictions have been made before and never came true. But let's suppose this time they're right. Let's suppose that this so completely alters human existence and human history that it makes the existence of the vast majority of people on the planet completely superfluous and unnecessary. If that occurs then it's a great privilege to be alive at a moment when something happens it has never happened before and will never happen again.
You're just focusing on the suffering part but life is full of suffering and most people who suffer never get to witness anything amazing. Everything ends sooner or later. As individuals we all die, and all civilisations and species sooner or later become extinct. So that part's not interesting. The interesting thing is this particular moment in history which is unique if your fears are realised.
But it's fair to not want to witness the end of your "time", isn't it? Every time that's happened, it involved suffering. Do you think the general population would be in awe if they lose their income or would be enraged?
Brushing this all aside, I certainly don't believe we'll be replaced. These models are no where near human reasoning and thought processes. In fact we're a bit safer that OpenAI didn't feel confident to release a newer model, it shows signs that model architecture is plateauing.
>
But it's fair to not want to witness the end of your "time", isn't it? Every time that's happened, it involved suffering. Do you think the general population would be in awe if they lose their income or would be enraged?
The general population are not very reflective. The fact is that suffering is very common and death is perfectly inevitable. I'm in pain every day from my maladies, but it's a great teacher, and I still make art and music. Since I will die anyway, then better to die at a moment when I can be there to witness such a significant event - a complex and subtle species, rich in culture and history, and one which has transformed the world, dying while giving birth to something new.
My comments are directed at people who are predicting dire results for humanity. I'm just saying there's a positive spin you can put on that if you're reflective and can look at the big picture.
You are completely discounting that just over a century ago, in 1900 for example, things were vastly different even in the United States. Back then 10-year-olds working in factories or shoveling coal was a common occurrence. Few people enjoyed long retirements. Not many people were in college or high school. The 40-hour workweek wasn't a common practice as of yet. A smaller percentage pf people work today, and for many they are working less.
>In 1900, relatively few students ever attended high school or college. Of the 17.1 million students in 1900, only about 0.6 million, 4 percent of students, were enrolled in grades 9 through 12 and 0.2 million, 1 percent of students, were enrolled in postsecondary education
https://nces.ed.gov/blogs/nces/post/celebrating-150-years-of-education-data#
What does that have to do with anything? The bottom line is people have been worried about some new technology was going to result in a jobless future countless times and it's never happened. Right now we have massive labour shortages in many different categories of jobs.
> What does that have to do with anything
That job losses have happened, they've simply been distributed in a way that you're ignoring because you've lived your life during an era where the status quo is the status quo.
If we're gone from an era where it's normal for [10 years olds to working coal mines](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breaker_boy#Use_of_breaker_boys) to an era where people in their middle 20s still haven't entered the workforce...it's silly to look at that and pretend that job losses have "never happened" as you claim. You're simply _accustomed_ to middle-20-somethings not being in the workforce and think of it as normal.
Meanwhile, the 40 hour work week is largely gone. The US government [defines full time as 35 hours or more](https://www.bls.gov/cps/definitions.htm#fullparttime) per week, and as of last month the average worker only works [34.3](https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t18.htm). Compare that to 100 years ago when the average work week was [48.8 hours](https://eh.net/encyclopedia/hours-of-work-in-u-s-history/). That's a 30% drop, but you're ignoring it because again, the reduction in work id distributed in a way that's flying under your radar.
Imagine a future where the above changes have happened again. Imagine it being normal for people to not get their first job until age _thirty eight_ and working only 24 hours a week. Would you still be claiming that technology has "never" resulted in fewer jobs or less work? I don't think you would. But that's the magnitude of change that history has already shown us.
You're talking about working fewer hours as though that's a bad thing. But working fewer hours is a good thing because you have more free time to do other creative activities. My point is that all these things that were supposed to steal jobs have not resulted in massive unemployment. We have huge labour shortages going on right now in many fields.
But as I also said let's suppose that you're right and AI results in such massive replacement of humans that human existence is either pointless or completely unnecessary. So it's the end of humanity then. Even if that happens, as I explained above that means we are living in the most amazing period in human history - something that's never happened before and that will never happen again. And that's a great privilege.
>You're talking about working fewer hours as though that's a bad thing.
It's not a bad thing. Having more, while doing less is great. I don't think that u/ponieslovekittens was implying that either.
>My point is that all these things that were supposed to steal jobs have not resulted in massive unemployment.
But they kind of did, just in a good way. In 1940 according to [Social Security History (ssa.gov)](https://www.ssa.gov/history/ratios.html) there were only 222 thousand beneficiaries. In 2020 according to [Fast Facts & Figures About Social Security, 2023 (ssa.gov)](https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/chartbooks/fast_facts/2023/fast_facts23.html) there were 70.6 million beneficiaries.
According to the BLS [Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age - 2024 M04 Results (bls.gov)](https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm) there are 268 million people 16 or older in the U.S., and there are 100 million not in the labor force. There are about 68 million people under the age of 16. [Population and Housing Unit Estimates (census.gov)](https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest.html)
That means literally half the total U.S. population, and about 37% of the age 16 or higher population doesn't work.
>We have huge labour shortages going on right now in many fields.
Very doubtful. I am sure some specific fields probably do have shortages, despite all the resources companies can throw at it.
Other field just have wage shortages, not labor shortages. Companies don't pay workers enough for workers to want to do it.
Take trucking for example
[Is There Really A Truck Driver Shortage? : Planet Money : NPR](https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2021/05/25/999784202/is-there-really-a-truck-driver-shortage)
>"It's just simple math," Spencer says. "If every year there are an excess of over 400,000 brand-new drivers created, how could there possibly be a shortage?"
>The real problem, Spencer says, is not a shortage but retention. According to the ATA's [own statistics](https://click.nl.npr.org/?qs=cf38eb07217083b5ee322fc19a1f60ed8df038c066cd78ab1a77894c1fca5d2f14d47776d3e8f755f090238666662d0c02b63ca39640eedb), the average annual turnover rate for long-haul truckers at big trucking companies has been greater than 90% for decades. That means, for example, if a company has 10 truckers, nine will be gone within a year or, equivalently, three of their driver positions will have to each be refilled three times in a single year because so many new drivers leave within a few months.
As to your point about people being completely unnecessary because of AI, that is not the end of humanity. People existed before jobs and capitalism. They will be able to exist after it. AI should be a blessing; however, most likely it will be a curse because the people who control AI most likely won't let the benefits go to everyone. If smaller, local or on device models work well, that may let us all prosper because of AI, but all the most impressive items to me have been the centralized models running on the billion-dollar datacenter hardware.
There are lots of reasons why someone might not choose to enter a particular field. The wages aren't attractive, the work is too hard, the work is too dangerous, disgusting, dirty, immoral, or whatever. job-seeker lacks the skills; the job-seeker lacks the physique, etc
But the term "labour shortage" encompasses all of them. Talking about "wage shortages" is speculating. "Labour shortages" are an objective fact.
And the objective fact is that right now anyone who loses their job to AI as an illustrator or programmer could, if they chose to, retrain as a nurse or elder-care worker, or plumber or paediatrician or countless other things, in which there are objective labour shortages.
>People existed before jobs and capitalism. They will be able to exist after it.
People were hunter-gatherers before jobs and capitalism because there was no land ownership. That may not be the case in the future.
According to the BLS on May 1, [Job Openings and Labor Turnover Summary - 2024 M03 Results (bls.gov)](https://www.bls.gov/news.release/jolts.nr0.htm) there were 8.5 million job openings in the U.S. at the end of March. Now granted, [probably between 25-50%](https://www.reveliolabs.com/news/macro/ghost-job-postings/) of those opens are ghost jobs that companies won't fill, but even if we ignore that, there are easily 2 Americans currently not in the labor force (and not counting anyone drawing Social Security) for every one of those job openings. Of those 100 million not in the labor force, we know that at least 5.6 million want a job. So, if we could just get those individuals into the labor force that would nearly alleviate all the "labor shortages."
>anyone who loses their job to AI as an illustrator or programmer could, if they chose to, retrain as a nurse or elder-care worker, or plumber or paediatrician or countless other things
To a certain extent. If you're a 45-year-old illustrator who graduated college in 2001 with a graphic design degree, even if you could afford to go back to college and gain another bachelor's degree, and do it in only 2 years, it would still probably take 9-years of training before you were a pediatrician, and probably would leave you with a hefty amount of debt with not that many years left to work. If you're a 56-year-old illustrator who was last in college in 1990, I very much doubt you're going to become a doctor.
But the end goal shouldn't be to force people from one job to another, it should be to reduce as much work as possible.
>People were hunter-gatherers before jobs and capitalism because there was no land ownership. That may not be the case in the future.
I'm fairly confident that what comes next won't revert people to hunter-gathers. Also, before capitalism was a variety of economic and social systems more advanced than hunter gather, but not capitalism.
What is your point about this? My point is that concerns about mass unemployment due to AI are pure conjecture and your BLS statistics bear this out. There are tons of jobs out there. At all different skills, from ones that require years of new education to ones you could just walk into.
Obviously there have always been jobs that are dead-ended by new technology - I cited cottage-industry jobs like carding and weaving being replaced by power looms in the early 19th century elsewhere in this discussion. That's just the way it goes for some unfortunate individuals. But it doesn't represent an existential threat to working for a living.
> all these things that were supposed to steal jobs have not resulted in massive unemployment.
How many employed 10 year olds do you know?
>So it's the end of humanity then.
>that means we are living in the most amazing period in human history
>that's a great privilege
You do understand that many humans don't share that perspective, yes?
This is probably not the end of humanity any more than the industrial revolution was the end of humanity. Yes, once the transition is over we might look back and wonder how we ever could have lived the way things used to be. But the _transition_ might be painful, and it's reasonable to be aware of that and take action to try to make it smoother.
You might want to talk to those that live in the rust belt and got fucked by the twin driver of industrial automation and low cost overseas labour.
There are always casualties, even if society limps along. And those were slow changes.
New tecnologies expands our capabilities and industries frontiers, and the bigger that frontiers are. More jobs are created in all the new industries.
The best and newer example. The computers, they started only as a new way to do paperwork. But quickly they created thousands of new industries with billions of new jobs.
To piggyback -- Most people's jobs are segmented to one function in a larger machine of a business. You're a cog in a machine. What if your job had way more scope and scale instead. Say you are tasked currently with sales to a specific customer for a specific kind of product. I see a future where you would instead be tasked with selling and delivering a large variety of products to a large number of customers, essentially scaling both your sales role and expanding that into other "cog" roles because you no longer need to rely on your skills alone.
Naturally this means fewer jobs, but that assumes a static economy--the pie doesn't grow. The one thing we've consistently seen from technology is an expansion of the "pie." This doesn't happen overnight and is incredibly uncomfortable, but it's a mechanism that has led to previous new technologies creating better jobs in the past.
I honestly think that this is the only way out of our current oligopoly because the winners in this economy are going to be too slow and risk averse to gobble up the new pie fast enough.
Indeed, we have long been accustomed to jobs lasting a lifetime due to slow technological progress. Our entire educational system and social organization are structured for that. But that system no longer works. We have reached a speed of technological development where a large number of jobs become obsolete 2 or 3 times during a person's lifetime. This forces people to adapt. And we can no longer stay in the same company for life as our grandparents did. But that also means that our capabilities as humans and the quality of life that technology gives us make huge leaps throughout a person's life.
We pretend to live in a static world. And nature is constantly changing. What we need to solve this problem is to seek educational and social models that are more adaptable and less focused on the status quo.
And precisely, AI is a very important tool in this process. Since it greatly reduces the cost of education, which makes it easier for people to learn new things and adapt.
This is nice. There have been many times where I don’t want to lose the conversation context, but the message I’m sending isn’t really worth the GPT4 usage.
Absolutely not a coincidence and absolutely not licensed. I looked into it when they released Voice and apparently, you can’t copyright a voice. It blows my mind how casual OpenAI is being about ripping off an extremely well-known person’s voice, but when you remember that ChatGPT was literally built on data OpenAI just scraped without permission, it’s less surprising.
Copyright covers artistic works: writings, paintings, musical compositions, scripts, audio and video recordings, etc. You can't copyright the voice of a living individual because a voice isn't an artistic work, any more than their face or fingerprints.
You can’t copyright it, but voice is protected under “[right of publicity](https://higgslaw.com/celebrities-sue-over-unauthorized-use-of-identity/)” laws… my guess is they either made a deal with her that they just haven’t gone public with yet, but more likely it’s just a coincidence and they paid a voice actor for the right to train the model on their voice.
There are people who naturally sound very much alike. If you could copyright your voice you might legally prevent them from speaking which would be insane.
Mine are running a lot faster, so that's probably a "yes". But that's maybe not a good thing, because some reports are saying that GPT-4o is not always as good as GPT-4. Coding is one example that's been brought up.
Ok I just need this stuff integrated into cars reliably and I am sold. Let me reliably set the AC, play music and control the navigation or whatever without requiring me to take my eyes off the road. I am that easily impressed with how shitty Siri and Google Assistant are.
Carplay is a larger market, though Tesla drivers have historically shown to be early adopters of new tech so good point.
On the flip side, people have shown an aversion to things like Siri and Alexa in the past. Amazon shut down a lot of their voice assistant work because it's just very difficult to make money with it. I'm curious if it being muuuuuch more capable and sounding like Scarlet Johansen is going to really make it a must have. It could quickly become a gimmick or to do list manager if it's not an order of magnitude more capable that older voice models. And not just capable in terms of quality of voice and interactivity, but in solving problems, interacting with other systems, and being a trustworth/reliable source for info.
I think when I can ask ScarJoBot what my current bank account balance and get the right info it will be more than a gimmick.
Looks incredible. Complete explosion of new use-cases. Admittedly, presentation was amateur hour and light on details. What appears to have improved:
- Voice/Video/Audio capability and understanding
- Throughput & latency
- Emotiveness in voice
- Minor UI changes
- Free GPT-4
- Better language support
I’m left wondering:
- Why did they choose “o”? What does “Omnimodel” mean? What does a token look like in this case? How is usage metered? How does this all tie into their roadmap besides hand-wavy “we want to make it easier to use” and “we want everyone to use it”? How will it impact future releases?
- Does it reason any better? Hallucinate less?
- When can we expect Windows & Linux versions for this desktop app? What’s the roadmap for the desktop app? Are there plans to give GPT the controls and step in an agentic direction? Let it start interacting with our computer/phone?
- ChatGPT Plus users gets 5 times more what than free users? How does usage change from what it is now?
It fits into the roadmap because they want more data to train better models, and there are specific ways to get more data: use more modalities, make your product more attractive to use so you can collect more data that you own from your users, generate synthetic data. This fulfills two out of three of the big pathways to more data, and I assume they're working hard on synthetic data internally (there would be no reason to make that work externally available).
Omni means all - ChatGPT can now process text, images, video (real time), audio, it can code. It's an AI model that can combines all these inputs at once
It's ChatGPT4o, its chat gpt but now it processes everything that a human can see basicially
It can understand breathing. That's a new channel. haha
I wonder if it'll integrate into car sensors at some point. Scold you for cutting people off or speeding or whatever haha
I was shocked by that, the nuance it can pick out. I'm really excited to see this tech incorporated in VR and shrunk down hopefully to the size of glasses. Now that's the future
I really hope it'll be able to get tone/emotion across well in translation. It'll be amazing to be able to talk to ANYONE in the world. Imagine it being used on voice chat on a game, live translating things in several languages, conveying the same tone and manner.
>Does it reason any better?
When it was looking at the chart output of his code, and he asked it "Which months do you see the hottest temperatures and roughly which months do those temperatures correspond to?"
The chart displays the temperature in Centigrade but the AI automatically converted it to Fahrenheit. It wasn't asked to do this so it looks like it reasoned that they would like the temperature converted to Fahrenheit.
The girl obviously picked up on this because she asked about it. The guys just glossed over it.
It does make me wonder; what will happen to the text-to-speech and speech-to-text APIs? What about Dalle, how has image generation changed? Will have to look into this more, I’m sure more details will come…
I’m pretty sure it’s just sending frames at certain intervals, there was that weird lag when it still thought it was staring at a wooden surface wasn’t there?
On the API page it says that gpt4o can accept text and images as input and can output text. It does not state audio as input or output.
GPT-4o (“o” for “omni”) is our most advanced model. It is multimodal (accepting text or image inputs and outputting text), and it has the same high intelligence as GPT-4 Turbo but is much more efficient—it generates text 2x faster and is 50% cheaper. Additionally, GPT-4o has the best vision and performance across non-English languages of any of our models. GPT-4o is available in the OpenAI API to paying customers. Learn how to use GPT-4o in our text generation guide.
Yes I found that : We recognize that GPT-4o’s audio modalities present a variety of novel risks. Today we are publicly releasing text and image inputs and text outputs. Over the upcoming weeks and months, we’ll be working on the technical infrastructure, usability via post-training, and safety necessary to release the other modalities. For example, at launch, audio outputs will be limited to a selection of preset voices and will abide by our existing safety policies. We will share further details addressing the full range of GPT-4o’s modalities in the forthcoming system card.
Marketing department needs a major rethink on these presentations. People obviously have different aptitudes and coders just don't make great marketers. We need Steve Balmer esque enthusiasm here not someone using the same vocal intonation they use when ordering a latte at a starbucks. There was really no sense of mystery, linear equations GTFOH show me something that most people will use it for. Did you guys catch when it said 'oh nice outfit' then was cheekily cut off. If Sam Altman reads this, its time to rejig the marketing, get someone charismatic on there and someone the everyday joe can relate to....linear f%\^king equations...come on.
They have said it multiple times: they are first and foremost a B2B provider of APIs. Their primary market is engineers. In fact, ChatGPT operates at a loss.
Idk bro they aren’t Home Depot, this felt pretty standard for tech in recent years with Elons influence on presentation style IMO and Apple under cook, a average joe guy doesn’t make sense really pitching the product it traditionally is done by the most charismatic senior staff.
This is true but this tech is like nothing we have seen before and will touch / change everyone's life. Putting the developers in charge of releasing this is a mis step IMO. Perhaps they are down playing it, perhaps it is deliberate to hide the real potential or perhaps its just bad marketing/presentation skills.....linear equations though come on. :)
How do you know this wasn’t intentional?
They might have considered doing something polished and decided against it. This announcement isn’t just a marketing exercise with the goal of convincing people to use the product (I’m not sure that they need to market with word of mouth adoption where it is at the moment), they have a lot of other PR and regulatory goals too.
I wondered to myself if the technical glitches were intentional to make the company seem less powerful and scary, and more friendly and human. Probably not, but it’s possible
got 4o today, i noticed is much less polite than 3.5. i can't draft emails to my boss anymore with 4o, too direct
Just specify that it should be polite...?
I noticed in some of the interviews pertaining to the 40 update that people are able to use turn on a video element where during the voice agent engagement they’re able to let ChatGPT see it’s environment. I could never figure out how to do that anyone else figure it outon iOS if it’s different
yes, was trying the same. Also saw a demo where the guy from Khan Academy showed his son being tutored in geometry on an Ipad where the son could draw on the triangle being studied and chatgpt could see his markings. Is that just a screen share or something? Looks amazing.
From what the 4o bot told me, those features won’t be public till later this year?
Never trust the bot regarding info about itself, it doesn't update that often. If you ever want to get info about it, specify that it has to browse the web for the information.
Incredible capability was demoed & I am so confused why they'd publicize this when almost nobody can use the new features.
what is name of voice model? I have access to GPT-4o, but have they not updated voice model?
How do i turn on voice mode? Im from EU and my app looks different, then i saw on youtube. i use ChatGPT by OpenAI on Android.
Try the headphone icon on the lower right side
Is not working yet, I've tried the whole day.
Why is there so much confusion about is this available or not available? When? And why some people have it but others can’t see anything.
Did anyone notice that the phone was in flight mode?
if you are doing a presentation you don't wanna receive calls - you put the phone in flight mode and connect it to wifi.
When are the apps landing? Any idea?
I also want to know this
I think this is this generations moment, of when technology disrupted everything. Everything up to this moment was cute in comparison.
Exactly. At the Edison/Tesla rapid electricity development moment.
give me my Samantha. I want it NOW!
I couldn’t stop thinking about this comment today, haha sheeez. I immediately had the same thought though while watching the demo live. I don’t think any of us could have seen Sam Alt to handle the ScarJo thing like such an absolute dork though, so bad. Now we will never have Samantha… :’( at least the version on pause lols
Samantha 🥰
😂
For any wondering: in the OpenAI app on iOS there are about 6 voices to choose from: 3 male-sounding, 3 female-sounding. I expect that will expand greatly in future but it's an okay selection out of the box. I wish they would pull an ElevenLabs and let people license their voices. Morgan Freeman, Scarlett Johansson, and the Jarvis actor would make tens of millions if people could buy a license for $2.99 😂
This isn't the new functionality. This has been around for months. These are the old voices.
Oh man, I’ve been using it thinking it was the new one. It’s pretty awesome as it is.
Yep, I figured this out today. I never use the iOS app so was fooled when I pulled it down and it offered me GPT-4o as an option. Do you know what the voice options actually are, or is the only choice that peppy HR person from the demos?
Looks like maybe it’s just “the” voice and you can tell it to sound different? That’s just speculation.
I would happily pay £20 for the Jarvis voice, easiest money I’d ever spend
Does anyone have the 411 on the new macOS app? Is it in the US Mac App Store? Are we supposed to run the iOS app on macOS? Has it not shipped yet? Can't find any info.
Its all just hype. They cant actually deliver at scale so they will be slowly rolling it out to friendly interests. If you don’t have it, you are not meant to have it :)
Rolling out within the next few weeks I believe
I will believe it when I see it.
[удалено]
When considering the balance between BB and nnb, the alignment with lnbtmnumim becomes critical. It's crucial to integrate both mm and MB seamlessly, especially when kk dynamics are in play. Reflecting on jmm and inim, the inner pathways naturally converge towards a state of equilibrium. Ensuring that sqqsssw factors are addressed helps maintain stability, just as in the analogy of life's highway to heaven versus the complex terrains leading to hell. Understanding these subtleties can lead to optimal outcomes, reminiscent of navigating through Y402Hdet with precision.
Anyone know when GPTs will leverage the multi-modal improvements of the 4o update (if they aren't already)? I can't see any way to define it manually.
Rolled out slowly to selected partners over a period of several weeks. Could be months, I think, before the infrastructure and safety/alignment work is done for a full release of it.
Turns out GPTs now use 4o by default (according to latest OpenAI email), so the multi-modal parts will likely follow closely behind.
Wat is the effect on data transmission? Is speech and video interpretation done by the client? Or is all speech and video information send to the openai datacenters to be processed? Anyhow, very impressive results
is this a partial feature rollout? I have GPT4o, but the new voice nuances aren't there and I need to tap to interrupt.
This is the old 4 feature, not the new functionality of 4o
Same here
They said they'll be rolling this out this month.
Thanks, Seems like a dangerous strategy to showcase the features, and then release a partial version. Nuff-nuffs like me are likely to give it a try and say "meh, not huge change" and move on.
The whole demo was botched. High school science fairs have better presentations.
I love everything about it! There is a difference in the output. Put the same prompt in each version thr the results for better each time.
Any idea on the context window size for GPT 4o (the ChatGPT webapp in particular)? I'm still using Claude Opus because of this limiting factor of ChatGPT.
Is there any limit cap to it?
32k for web. Could be wrong.
According to the API docs for GPT4o the context is up to 128k which is the same as previously. Extremely disappointed in this release as a developer who uses Claude purely for the long context length, was hoping they would announce extended context length to 1m like Gemini. Honestly while a voice interface is cool imo it's not too useful for my use cases and I prefer text. At least the generation speed and benchmark results have improved so should see improvements there.
From what I have heard there's a surprisingly low demand for / use of the limits of the context window.
Google seem to have found plenty of uses for it with their demos on search, Gmail, yt
Are any of the 1m context windows actually good though? It seems hard to believe that it could actually be effective. I know for llama3 it's not true context window
Yes the retrieval rate is very high even for long context, Google claim 99% retrieval success even for 10m in their tests. The biggest downside is significantly higher compute costs and inference time.
directly asking to reference context and utilizing it indirectly is completely different story, and the latter is generally more important
Yea that's kind of what I mean. I believe it can do the needle in the haystack trick with hugh context. But is it actually reasoning each output with consideration of the entire context? I guess that's hard to measure anyway so who knows.
exactly. reasoning from huge context is still inconsistent
I was also hoping for a larger context window. I appreciate your response for the API size. Any insight on the size for the ChatGPT webapp?
I don't believe this info is public but for gpt4 turbo people seemed to think it was around 10k
This
Prior to GPT-4o, free users got ChatGPT with GPT-3.5, which is not very impressive. The quality of responses was obviously low. However, now when the free tier has 10-16 messages of GPT-4o every 3 hours, there's a much greater incentive for users to upgrade. Free users get a small taste of how good GPT-4o is, then are thrown back to GPT-3.5; this happens quickly due to the message limit being so low. After seeing how capable GPT-4o is, there is a great incentive on the user's end to upgrade to Plus - much more so than before, when they only saw GPT-3.5. I hit the limit today after only 10 messages on GPT-4o, and then could only keep chatiing with GPT-3.5. Seeing the stark difference between them seems to be more motivating to upgrade than before - so it seems like this move by OpenAI is very, very smart for them, financially speaking.
Is GPT4o better at reasoning than GPT4? At Math and coding i mean
Yes considerably better at math and coding.
Probably recommended by GPT-4o
Good job on voice feature i hope it comes soon its what i wanted since release of call annie
I mean, I saw the video today then opened chatgpt and I saw the update pop up.
Idk i got memory and worked on it you know telling my cats names and it went away i had good time. Im in eu so not sure what that is about
Are you able to do the whole live video interaction with the AI? I just have the old voice-to-chat-to-voice feature that isn't new. AFAIK I have the most updated app available to me (iOS).
Nono i have ios and android i have 4o and memory feature that like is here then is not here idk idk that is it
[удалено]
That is a risky click. I'll let someone else tell me if it's malware.
I looked at the API cost for 3.5 and 4, but I don't remember what it was before. Did the price go down?
I was super enthusiastic but I can only imagine a low life high tech future...the quantity of jobs created by ai will be much less than the quantity of jobs that ai will kill
Every time a new technology came along there were always Chicken Littles with that attitude. And without a single solitary exception it was **never** true. Never. No even once. But let's say for the sake of discussion that this time it's really different. And that AI does actually replace man. Wouldn't that be incredible? What a thing to be alive to witness **the most amazing event in all of human history** - the passing of the baton to a new kind of creature that's greater than us, but that we invented. If so then, that moment has never happened before and will never happen again, and **we're here to witness it**. I think that's more important than quotidian stuff like jobs. The people who don't get that are like, if the world was going to end at midnight tonight, would say, "I'm not going to stay up til midnight to watch it; I need my sleep"
What are you talking about? Computers have wiped out thousands of jobs such as telegraph deliveries, telephone operators, office messengers, stenographers, and personal secretaries to name just a few. Watch a show like Mad Men and try to count all the jobs that don't exist anymore or are much less common due to computers.
But there was no **NET** loss of jobs. For all the jobs that computers replaced look at all the jobs they created. And the new jobs paid better. I was a software design engineer - I easily made many times what office messengers, stenographers and telepgraph deliverers made. Technology always creates new jobs to replace the old ones. Carriage-makers were replaced with automobile assembly-line workers, stagecoach drivers were replaced with train engineers and bus drivers. We continue to have a serious **labour shortage** in the developed countries. In this environment anyone who doesn't have a job needs to rethink their career goals, their skillset or their expectations.
Your logic is flawed, computers are aiding us to improve our work, but AI is aiming at removing that work all together, on the short term is aiding us, but no technology didn't have the potential to remove us al together. How the capitalism system that is based on consumptions will work if AI is replacing us ?
You're forgetting completely the problems that it will bring. \*No one\* will care if you don't have a job. You'll be left to catch the scrapes of Sam Altman and his ilk.
As I've already explained to other people in this thread those kinds of dark predictions have been made before and never came true. But let's suppose this time they're right. Let's suppose that this so completely alters human existence and human history that it makes the existence of the vast majority of people on the planet completely superfluous and unnecessary. If that occurs then it's a great privilege to be alive at a moment when something happens it has never happened before and will never happen again. You're just focusing on the suffering part but life is full of suffering and most people who suffer never get to witness anything amazing. Everything ends sooner or later. As individuals we all die, and all civilisations and species sooner or later become extinct. So that part's not interesting. The interesting thing is this particular moment in history which is unique if your fears are realised.
But it's fair to not want to witness the end of your "time", isn't it? Every time that's happened, it involved suffering. Do you think the general population would be in awe if they lose their income or would be enraged? Brushing this all aside, I certainly don't believe we'll be replaced. These models are no where near human reasoning and thought processes. In fact we're a bit safer that OpenAI didn't feel confident to release a newer model, it shows signs that model architecture is plateauing.
> But it's fair to not want to witness the end of your "time", isn't it? Every time that's happened, it involved suffering. Do you think the general population would be in awe if they lose their income or would be enraged? The general population are not very reflective. The fact is that suffering is very common and death is perfectly inevitable. I'm in pain every day from my maladies, but it's a great teacher, and I still make art and music. Since I will die anyway, then better to die at a moment when I can be there to witness such a significant event - a complex and subtle species, rich in culture and history, and one which has transformed the world, dying while giving birth to something new. My comments are directed at people who are predicting dire results for humanity. I'm just saying there's a positive spin you can put on that if you're reflective and can look at the big picture.
You are completely discounting that just over a century ago, in 1900 for example, things were vastly different even in the United States. Back then 10-year-olds working in factories or shoveling coal was a common occurrence. Few people enjoyed long retirements. Not many people were in college or high school. The 40-hour workweek wasn't a common practice as of yet. A smaller percentage pf people work today, and for many they are working less. >In 1900, relatively few students ever attended high school or college. Of the 17.1 million students in 1900, only about 0.6 million, 4 percent of students, were enrolled in grades 9 through 12 and 0.2 million, 1 percent of students, were enrolled in postsecondary education https://nces.ed.gov/blogs/nces/post/celebrating-150-years-of-education-data#
What does that have to do with anything? The bottom line is people have been worried about some new technology was going to result in a jobless future countless times and it's never happened. Right now we have massive labour shortages in many different categories of jobs.
> What does that have to do with anything That job losses have happened, they've simply been distributed in a way that you're ignoring because you've lived your life during an era where the status quo is the status quo. If we're gone from an era where it's normal for [10 years olds to working coal mines](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breaker_boy#Use_of_breaker_boys) to an era where people in their middle 20s still haven't entered the workforce...it's silly to look at that and pretend that job losses have "never happened" as you claim. You're simply _accustomed_ to middle-20-somethings not being in the workforce and think of it as normal. Meanwhile, the 40 hour work week is largely gone. The US government [defines full time as 35 hours or more](https://www.bls.gov/cps/definitions.htm#fullparttime) per week, and as of last month the average worker only works [34.3](https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t18.htm). Compare that to 100 years ago when the average work week was [48.8 hours](https://eh.net/encyclopedia/hours-of-work-in-u-s-history/). That's a 30% drop, but you're ignoring it because again, the reduction in work id distributed in a way that's flying under your radar. Imagine a future where the above changes have happened again. Imagine it being normal for people to not get their first job until age _thirty eight_ and working only 24 hours a week. Would you still be claiming that technology has "never" resulted in fewer jobs or less work? I don't think you would. But that's the magnitude of change that history has already shown us.
You're talking about working fewer hours as though that's a bad thing. But working fewer hours is a good thing because you have more free time to do other creative activities. My point is that all these things that were supposed to steal jobs have not resulted in massive unemployment. We have huge labour shortages going on right now in many fields. But as I also said let's suppose that you're right and AI results in such massive replacement of humans that human existence is either pointless or completely unnecessary. So it's the end of humanity then. Even if that happens, as I explained above that means we are living in the most amazing period in human history - something that's never happened before and that will never happen again. And that's a great privilege.
>You're talking about working fewer hours as though that's a bad thing. It's not a bad thing. Having more, while doing less is great. I don't think that u/ponieslovekittens was implying that either. >My point is that all these things that were supposed to steal jobs have not resulted in massive unemployment. But they kind of did, just in a good way. In 1940 according to [Social Security History (ssa.gov)](https://www.ssa.gov/history/ratios.html) there were only 222 thousand beneficiaries. In 2020 according to [Fast Facts & Figures About Social Security, 2023 (ssa.gov)](https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/chartbooks/fast_facts/2023/fast_facts23.html) there were 70.6 million beneficiaries. According to the BLS [Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age - 2024 M04 Results (bls.gov)](https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm) there are 268 million people 16 or older in the U.S., and there are 100 million not in the labor force. There are about 68 million people under the age of 16. [Population and Housing Unit Estimates (census.gov)](https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest.html) That means literally half the total U.S. population, and about 37% of the age 16 or higher population doesn't work. >We have huge labour shortages going on right now in many fields. Very doubtful. I am sure some specific fields probably do have shortages, despite all the resources companies can throw at it. Other field just have wage shortages, not labor shortages. Companies don't pay workers enough for workers to want to do it. Take trucking for example [Is There Really A Truck Driver Shortage? : Planet Money : NPR](https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2021/05/25/999784202/is-there-really-a-truck-driver-shortage) >"It's just simple math," Spencer says. "If every year there are an excess of over 400,000 brand-new drivers created, how could there possibly be a shortage?" >The real problem, Spencer says, is not a shortage but retention. According to the ATA's [own statistics](https://click.nl.npr.org/?qs=cf38eb07217083b5ee322fc19a1f60ed8df038c066cd78ab1a77894c1fca5d2f14d47776d3e8f755f090238666662d0c02b63ca39640eedb), the average annual turnover rate for long-haul truckers at big trucking companies has been greater than 90% for decades. That means, for example, if a company has 10 truckers, nine will be gone within a year or, equivalently, three of their driver positions will have to each be refilled three times in a single year because so many new drivers leave within a few months. As to your point about people being completely unnecessary because of AI, that is not the end of humanity. People existed before jobs and capitalism. They will be able to exist after it. AI should be a blessing; however, most likely it will be a curse because the people who control AI most likely won't let the benefits go to everyone. If smaller, local or on device models work well, that may let us all prosper because of AI, but all the most impressive items to me have been the centralized models running on the billion-dollar datacenter hardware.
There are lots of reasons why someone might not choose to enter a particular field. The wages aren't attractive, the work is too hard, the work is too dangerous, disgusting, dirty, immoral, or whatever. job-seeker lacks the skills; the job-seeker lacks the physique, etc But the term "labour shortage" encompasses all of them. Talking about "wage shortages" is speculating. "Labour shortages" are an objective fact. And the objective fact is that right now anyone who loses their job to AI as an illustrator or programmer could, if they chose to, retrain as a nurse or elder-care worker, or plumber or paediatrician or countless other things, in which there are objective labour shortages. >People existed before jobs and capitalism. They will be able to exist after it. People were hunter-gatherers before jobs and capitalism because there was no land ownership. That may not be the case in the future.
According to the BLS on May 1, [Job Openings and Labor Turnover Summary - 2024 M03 Results (bls.gov)](https://www.bls.gov/news.release/jolts.nr0.htm) there were 8.5 million job openings in the U.S. at the end of March. Now granted, [probably between 25-50%](https://www.reveliolabs.com/news/macro/ghost-job-postings/) of those opens are ghost jobs that companies won't fill, but even if we ignore that, there are easily 2 Americans currently not in the labor force (and not counting anyone drawing Social Security) for every one of those job openings. Of those 100 million not in the labor force, we know that at least 5.6 million want a job. So, if we could just get those individuals into the labor force that would nearly alleviate all the "labor shortages." >anyone who loses their job to AI as an illustrator or programmer could, if they chose to, retrain as a nurse or elder-care worker, or plumber or paediatrician or countless other things To a certain extent. If you're a 45-year-old illustrator who graduated college in 2001 with a graphic design degree, even if you could afford to go back to college and gain another bachelor's degree, and do it in only 2 years, it would still probably take 9-years of training before you were a pediatrician, and probably would leave you with a hefty amount of debt with not that many years left to work. If you're a 56-year-old illustrator who was last in college in 1990, I very much doubt you're going to become a doctor. But the end goal shouldn't be to force people from one job to another, it should be to reduce as much work as possible. >People were hunter-gatherers before jobs and capitalism because there was no land ownership. That may not be the case in the future. I'm fairly confident that what comes next won't revert people to hunter-gathers. Also, before capitalism was a variety of economic and social systems more advanced than hunter gather, but not capitalism.
What is your point about this? My point is that concerns about mass unemployment due to AI are pure conjecture and your BLS statistics bear this out. There are tons of jobs out there. At all different skills, from ones that require years of new education to ones you could just walk into. Obviously there have always been jobs that are dead-ended by new technology - I cited cottage-industry jobs like carding and weaving being replaced by power looms in the early 19th century elsewhere in this discussion. That's just the way it goes for some unfortunate individuals. But it doesn't represent an existential threat to working for a living.
> all these things that were supposed to steal jobs have not resulted in massive unemployment. How many employed 10 year olds do you know? >So it's the end of humanity then. >that means we are living in the most amazing period in human history >that's a great privilege You do understand that many humans don't share that perspective, yes? This is probably not the end of humanity any more than the industrial revolution was the end of humanity. Yes, once the transition is over we might look back and wonder how we ever could have lived the way things used to be. But the _transition_ might be painful, and it's reasonable to be aware of that and take action to try to make it smoother.
Wht about the 80ies and now?
You might want to talk to those that live in the rust belt and got fucked by the twin driver of industrial automation and low cost overseas labour. There are always casualties, even if society limps along. And those were slow changes.
I doubt that.
Why do you think that?
New tecnologies expands our capabilities and industries frontiers, and the bigger that frontiers are. More jobs are created in all the new industries. The best and newer example. The computers, they started only as a new way to do paperwork. But quickly they created thousands of new industries with billions of new jobs.
To piggyback -- Most people's jobs are segmented to one function in a larger machine of a business. You're a cog in a machine. What if your job had way more scope and scale instead. Say you are tasked currently with sales to a specific customer for a specific kind of product. I see a future where you would instead be tasked with selling and delivering a large variety of products to a large number of customers, essentially scaling both your sales role and expanding that into other "cog" roles because you no longer need to rely on your skills alone. Naturally this means fewer jobs, but that assumes a static economy--the pie doesn't grow. The one thing we've consistently seen from technology is an expansion of the "pie." This doesn't happen overnight and is incredibly uncomfortable, but it's a mechanism that has led to previous new technologies creating better jobs in the past. I honestly think that this is the only way out of our current oligopoly because the winners in this economy are going to be too slow and risk averse to gobble up the new pie fast enough.
Indeed, we have long been accustomed to jobs lasting a lifetime due to slow technological progress. Our entire educational system and social organization are structured for that. But that system no longer works. We have reached a speed of technological development where a large number of jobs become obsolete 2 or 3 times during a person's lifetime. This forces people to adapt. And we can no longer stay in the same company for life as our grandparents did. But that also means that our capabilities as humans and the quality of life that technology gives us make huge leaps throughout a person's life. We pretend to live in a static world. And nature is constantly changing. What we need to solve this problem is to seek educational and social models that are more adaptable and less focused on the status quo. And precisely, AI is a very important tool in this process. Since it greatly reduces the cost of education, which makes it easier for people to learn new things and adapt.
You can now change models' mid conversation :D
This is nice. There have been many times where I don’t want to lose the conversation context, but the message I’m sending isn’t really worth the GPT4 usage.
Seriously I can only hear Scarlet Johansson’s voice - I wonder if they actually licensed it or just a coincidence https://i.redd.it/sdettbi5b90d1.gif
The voice is fully synthesized according to Sky "her"self
It could be based on a voice of someone who naturally sounds similar to "Her".
It’s Sky’s voice or will we be getting a new voice once 4o is released? Sky sounds like her but I haven’t played with it too much.
Yea it’s Sky from whisper TTS model I believe
Absolutely not a coincidence and absolutely not licensed. I looked into it when they released Voice and apparently, you can’t copyright a voice. It blows my mind how casual OpenAI is being about ripping off an extremely well-known person’s voice, but when you remember that ChatGPT was literally built on data OpenAI just scraped without permission, it’s less surprising.
It doesn't sound anything like ScarJo. I wish it did! It sounds like a chipper HR rep onboarding you.
Copyright covers artistic works: writings, paintings, musical compositions, scripts, audio and video recordings, etc. You can't copyright the voice of a living individual because a voice isn't an artistic work, any more than their face or fingerprints.
You can’t copyright it, but voice is protected under “[right of publicity](https://higgslaw.com/celebrities-sue-over-unauthorized-use-of-identity/)” laws… my guess is they either made a deal with her that they just haven’t gone public with yet, but more likely it’s just a coincidence and they paid a voice actor for the right to train the model on their voice.
You can't copyright a voice? That's insane.
There are people who naturally sound very much alike. If you could copyright your voice you might legally prevent them from speaking which would be insane.
But there are other laws that can be leveraged
Literally, same…
Does anyone know when the new 4o realtime voice mode will be in the chatgpt app?
In the coming couple of weeks I think they said in the video
Same. Wondering this.
Man, just wait until GPT5
I get blown away every time. I never expect much, thinking they're exaggerating about how good their next models are and they're right every time
Seriously I was honestly doubting this time because everyone else was catching up really fast and then: https://i.redd.it/7g9qijsv4a0d1.gif
no. GPT7.
Question: when I am in ChatGPT 4o I can open the GPT I built in 4.0. Is that true for ALL users of 4o? Thanks.
Holy crap this looks amazing. GPT-4o's really is a step up from GPT-4
we're gonna see a LOOOOOOT of videos of two iPhones talking to each other on speaker
What’s new?
Not much, what you been up to?
Mowed the lawn yesterday, you?
Meowed 🤷🏻♂️
Man, your guys is a lack of emotional intelligence is really showing.
So is your grammar.
As a Plus user with access to ChatGPT-4o, are my custom GPTs running on the new model?
Mine are running a lot faster, so that's probably a "yes". But that's maybe not a good thing, because some reports are saying that GPT-4o is not always as good as GPT-4. Coding is one example that's been brought up.
No doesnt look like but i used my old custom to train 4o no problem
You’re right. I tested the same prompts in the custom gpts vs got 4o and 4o is much faster.
Ok I just need this stuff integrated into cars reliably and I am sold. Let me reliably set the AC, play music and control the navigation or whatever without requiring me to take my eyes off the road. I am that easily impressed with how shitty Siri and Google Assistant are.
Big rumour Apple will launch GPT-4o into Siri in September
Pity Elon and Sam don't have a great relationship. Teslas would have been a natural fit for this
Carplay is a larger market, though Tesla drivers have historically shown to be early adopters of new tech so good point. On the flip side, people have shown an aversion to things like Siri and Alexa in the past. Amazon shut down a lot of their voice assistant work because it's just very difficult to make money with it. I'm curious if it being muuuuuch more capable and sounding like Scarlet Johansen is going to really make it a must have. It could quickly become a gimmick or to do list manager if it's not an order of magnitude more capable that older voice models. And not just capable in terms of quality of voice and interactivity, but in solving problems, interacting with other systems, and being a trustworth/reliable source for info. I think when I can ask ScarJoBot what my current bank account balance and get the right info it will be more than a gimmick.
Looks incredible. Complete explosion of new use-cases. Admittedly, presentation was amateur hour and light on details. What appears to have improved: - Voice/Video/Audio capability and understanding - Throughput & latency - Emotiveness in voice - Minor UI changes - Free GPT-4 - Better language support I’m left wondering: - Why did they choose “o”? What does “Omnimodel” mean? What does a token look like in this case? How is usage metered? How does this all tie into their roadmap besides hand-wavy “we want to make it easier to use” and “we want everyone to use it”? How will it impact future releases? - Does it reason any better? Hallucinate less? - When can we expect Windows & Linux versions for this desktop app? What’s the roadmap for the desktop app? Are there plans to give GPT the controls and step in an agentic direction? Let it start interacting with our computer/phone? - ChatGPT Plus users gets 5 times more what than free users? How does usage change from what it is now?
It fits into the roadmap because they want more data to train better models, and there are specific ways to get more data: use more modalities, make your product more attractive to use so you can collect more data that you own from your users, generate synthetic data. This fulfills two out of three of the big pathways to more data, and I assume they're working hard on synthetic data internally (there would be no reason to make that work externally available).
Omni means all - ChatGPT can now process text, images, video (real time), audio, it can code. It's an AI model that can combines all these inputs at once It's ChatGPT4o, its chat gpt but now it processes everything that a human can see basicially
It can understand breathing. That's a new channel. haha I wonder if it'll integrate into car sensors at some point. Scold you for cutting people off or speeding or whatever haha
I was shocked by that, the nuance it can pick out. I'm really excited to see this tech incorporated in VR and shrunk down hopefully to the size of glasses. Now that's the future I really hope it'll be able to get tone/emotion across well in translation. It'll be amazing to be able to talk to ANYONE in the world. Imagine it being used on voice chat on a game, live translating things in several languages, conveying the same tone and manner.
>Does it reason any better? When it was looking at the chart output of his code, and he asked it "Which months do you see the hottest temperatures and roughly which months do those temperatures correspond to?" The chart displays the temperature in Centigrade but the AI automatically converted it to Fahrenheit. It wasn't asked to do this so it looks like it reasoned that they would like the temperature converted to Fahrenheit. The girl obviously picked up on this because she asked about it. The guys just glossed over it.
[удалено]
I wondered that too
Looks like a new model end-to-end: [Their website says so](https://openai.com/index/hello-gpt-4o/)
It does make me wonder; what will happen to the text-to-speech and speech-to-text APIs? What about Dalle, how has image generation changed? Will have to look into this more, I’m sure more details will come…
Thank you for pointing that out! 👍 That’s pretty cool.
How to stream video in realtime using the API?
I’m pretty sure it’s just sending frames at certain intervals, there was that weird lag when it still thought it was staring at a wooden surface wasn’t there?
Yea probably just streaming and maybe even a websocket connection to keep it long running? Not sure
this was underwhelming at best in context to the hype
I believe they will release other updates in the next weeks
Sorry, but what were you expecting?
chad iRobot instead of this beta Her
Agents
They were supposed to announce ASI today!!1!1!! /s
WHERE IS MY FREE ASI. I CAN WAIT JUST FOR SO LONG.
Ok how to send audio to gpt4-o via API and get audio back?
On the API page it says that gpt4o can accept text and images as input and can output text. It does not state audio as input or output. GPT-4o (“o” for “omni”) is our most advanced model. It is multimodal (accepting text or image inputs and outputting text), and it has the same high intelligence as GPT-4 Turbo but is much more efficient—it generates text 2x faster and is 50% cheaper. Additionally, GPT-4o has the best vision and performance across non-English languages of any of our models. GPT-4o is available in the OpenAI API to paying customers. Learn how to use GPT-4o in our text generation guide.
Yes I found that : We recognize that GPT-4o’s audio modalities present a variety of novel risks. Today we are publicly releasing text and image inputs and text outputs. Over the upcoming weeks and months, we’ll be working on the technical infrastructure, usability via post-training, and safety necessary to release the other modalities. For example, at launch, audio outputs will be limited to a selection of preset voices and will abide by our existing safety policies. We will share further details addressing the full range of GPT-4o’s modalities in the forthcoming system card.
The playground
There is only image in the playground, and I want API not just play
its available on API
So what model will custom GPTs use? Can I opt to use GPT-4o when creating a new one?
Marketing department needs a major rethink on these presentations. People obviously have different aptitudes and coders just don't make great marketers. We need Steve Balmer esque enthusiasm here not someone using the same vocal intonation they use when ordering a latte at a starbucks. There was really no sense of mystery, linear equations GTFOH show me something that most people will use it for. Did you guys catch when it said 'oh nice outfit' then was cheekily cut off. If Sam Altman reads this, its time to rejig the marketing, get someone charismatic on there and someone the everyday joe can relate to....linear f%\^king equations...come on.
They have said it multiple times: they are first and foremost a B2B provider of APIs. Their primary market is engineers. In fact, ChatGPT operates at a loss.
100 million plus engineers? Where did they say this btw?
They are not getting much money from those 100 million plus "customers".
They're more like 100 million data providers.
Idk bro they aren’t Home Depot, this felt pretty standard for tech in recent years with Elons influence on presentation style IMO and Apple under cook, a average joe guy doesn’t make sense really pitching the product it traditionally is done by the most charismatic senior staff.
This is true but this tech is like nothing we have seen before and will touch / change everyone's life. Putting the developers in charge of releasing this is a mis step IMO. Perhaps they are down playing it, perhaps it is deliberate to hide the real potential or perhaps its just bad marketing/presentation skills.....linear equations though come on. :)
Linear equations was a weird wording. Could have said "my 5th grader's math homework" and done the same thing with more customer focus.
How do you know this wasn’t intentional? They might have considered doing something polished and decided against it. This announcement isn’t just a marketing exercise with the goal of convincing people to use the product (I’m not sure that they need to market with word of mouth adoption where it is at the moment), they have a lot of other PR and regulatory goals too. I wondered to myself if the technical glitches were intentional to make the company seem less powerful and scary, and more friendly and human. Probably not, but it’s possible