Screenshot of this question was making the rounds last week. But this article covers testing against all the well-known models out there.
Also includes outtakes on the ‘reasoning’ models.
Screenshot of this question was making the rounds last week. But this article covers testing against all the well-known models out there.
Also includes outtakes on the ‘reasoning’ models.
I think its far more likely to degrade itself in a feedback loop.
It’s already happening. GPT 5.2 is noticeably worse than previous versions.
It’s called model collapse.
To clarify : model collapse is a hypothetical phenomenon that has only been observed in toy models under extreme circumstances. This is not related in any way to what is happening at OpenAI.
OpenAI made a bunch of choices in their product design which basically boil down to “what if we used a cheaper, dumber model to reply to you once in a while”.
I mean, we’re watching it happen. I don’t think it’s hypothetical anymore.
I’m sorry but no, models are definitely not collapsing. They still have a million issues and are subject to a variety of local optima, but they are not collapsing in any way. It is not known whether this can even happen in large models, and if it can it would require months of active effort to generate the toxic data and fine-tune models on that data. Nobody is gonna spend that kind of money to shoot themselves in the foot.
Then why are newer versions of the major models performing so poorly? For instance, GPT 5.2 is definitely not an improvement over 4.5. What’s the root cause?
The switch you mention (from 4th gen to 5th gen GPT) is when they introduced the model router, which created a lot of friction. Basically this will try to answer your question with as cheap a model as possible, so most of the time you won’t be using flagship 5.2 but a 5.2-mini or 5.2-tiny which are seriously dumber. This is done to save money of course, and the only way to guarantee pure 5.2 usage is to go through the API where you pay for every token.
There’s also a ton of affect and personal bias. Humans are notoriously bad at evaluating others intelligence, and this is especially true of chatbots which try to mimic specific personalities that may or may not mesh well with your own. For example, OpenAI’s signature “salesman & bootlicker” personality is grating to me and i consistently think it’s stupider than it is. I’ve even done a bit of double blind evaluation on various cognitive tasks to confirm my impression but the data really didn’t agree with me. It’s smart, roughly as smart as other models of its generation, but it’s just fucking insufferable. It’s like i see Sam Altman’s shit eating grin each time i read a word from ChatGPT, that’s why i stopped using it. That’s a property of me, the human, not GPT, the machine.
The funny thing is, in order to get it to the dumber model, they have to run people’s queries through a model that selects the appropriate model first. This is resulted in new headaches for AI fans
Yeah that’s also something that you have to train for, i’m not super aware of the technicals but model routing is definitely important to the AI companies. I suspect that’s part of why they can pretend that “inference is profitable” as they are already trying to squeeze it down as much as possible.
I wonder if the routing is actually going to decrease the overall costs or increase them… Routing looks like it introduces new, unavoidable factors that would cause the costs to increase.
Yeah i remember that Ed article ! I don’t think the technical aspects are relevant to the newer generation of models, but yeah of course any attempt to compress inference costs can have side effects : either response quality will degrade for using dumber models, or you’ll have re-inference costs when the dumb model shits its pants. In fact the re-inference can become super costly as dumber models tend to get lost in reasoning loops more easily.