I think my biggest pet peeve is when someone shares an insight which is unmistakably based on intuition, inference, critical thinking, etc (all mental faculties we are allowed to use to come to conclusions in the face of information asymmetry btw)
...and then gets hit deadpan with the good old "Source?", like it's some sort of gotcha.
I think people have started to confuse "making logical conclusions without perfect info" with "misinformation"
-
Before certain people start acting like this is advocating for misinformation (which would be an incredible irony...) it's not.
I'm saying if you disagree with what someone supposits, just state so directly. Don't wrap it in a disingenous query for a source.
It's reasonable to ask for sources when an opinion is phrased as a fact, as GGP did. I don't see how you got that it was _unmistakably_ an opinion from that comment.
There is no way to deduce by intuition alone that GPT-5 == GPT-4o. So either that person has some information the rest of us aren't privy to, or it's an opinion phrased as a fact. In either case, it deserves clarification.
On a second read I see that the comment notes that it is intended as speculation, but still it seems rather confident in its own accuracy and I am not even sure it's wrong, but just looking for something that warrants the confidence.
I wrote my comment that way, based on my personal memories of the news cycle between gpt-4 and gpt-4o, and the claims raised by OpenAI about gpt-4o. The hype before 4o release was overwhelming, people have expected the same step up as between 3 and 4, and there were constant "leaks" from supposed insiders that gpt-5 is just at the horizon and will come out soon. And then they release 4o, which was a big standalone release, not some fine tuning like turbo or whatever else they made before.
Looking at the benchmarks it was also very expected in my opinion. Sure, the absolute results are/were sky high, but results relative to the previous gen were not exponential now, they were comparatively smaller than between 2 and 3, or 3 and 4. So I'm guessing that they have invested and worked for 2023-2024 on a brand new model, and branded it according to the model results.
That was clearly phrased like a fact, which may or may not be correct. If it had been phrased like an opinion we wouldn't be having this conversation...
The problem is once you believe their fact is wrong, just say "I think you're wrong <insert rest of comment>". Innocently asking for a source as if you're still on the fence is just performative and leads to these conversations where both sides just end up talking past each other:
A source for one underpinning of the incorrect fact comes up, then "well but that only proves X part of it, can you prove Y" and so on.
tl;dr I just find the quality of discourse is much higher when people are direct.
> I just find the quality of discourse is much higher when people are direct.
Well this certainly is a lot of work to make a mountain out of a mole hill, and I'm not sure it increases the quality of discussion either.
In any case, I think saying bold shit followed up with "it's speculation, but it's OBVIOUS speculation" is worth asking for some evidence. Obvious speculation implies it's sourced from something other than personal gut feeling.
To echo a sibling comment:
> Every time someone says their speculation is "obvious" it rings every possible alarm bell for someone who has completely lost grasp of the ability to distinguish between facts and speculation.
I think it's okay to make logical conclusions but you must base them in evidence, not just suppositions. Intuition is a good start to begin generating hypothesis, but it doesn't render conclusions. I interpreted the GP asking for sources as "can you give me some evidence that would help me reach the same conclusions you've reached". I think that's much preferable to just accepting random things people say at face value.
Even with evidence a logical conclusion can still a supposition (aka an uncertain belief), and often is in the face of the kind of information asymmetry inherent to any outsider commenting on a private company's internal roadmap... but I digress.
My point is simply that is we can skip the passive aggressiveness and just say "can you give me some more evidence that would help me reach the same conclusions you've reached".
Otherwise you're not actually asking for a source, you're just saying "I disagree" in a very roundabout way.
It doesn't even look like 4o is scaled up parameter wise from 4 and was released closer in time than either 3 or 4 were from their predecessors at a time where the scaling required for these next gen iterations has only gotten more difficult.
Critical thinking ? Lol it's just blind speculation.
If you disagree with their reasoning then you explain that.
You don't do this passive aggressive "source???" thing.
It's a bit like starting a Slack conversation with "Hi?": we all know you have a secondary objective, but now you're inserting an extra turn of phrase into the mix
Not everyone keeps up with LLM development enough to know how far apart the release dates for these models are, how much scaling (roughly) has been done on each iteration and a decent ballpark for how much open ai might try to scale up a next gen model.
To me, OP's speculation reads as obvious nonsense but that might not be the case for everybody. Asking for sources or such to what is entirely speculation is perfectly valid and personally, that comment does not ring as passive aggressive to me but maybe it's just me.
Just because someone doesn't know enough to refute the reasoning doesn't mean they must take whatever they read at face value.
If we're making this about the innocent bystanders now, that's all the more reason to be direct and say "I disagree." rather than indirectly expressing negative feelings (aka being passive aggressive) and asking for a source.
If anything just breezily asking for a source would imply to people who don't know better that this is a rather even keeled take and just needs some more evidence on top. "I disagree and here's why" nips that in the bud directly.
How is "I disagree" any more direct than "I've not heard anything like this. any source that would point at that?" Moreover who's to say this person even disagrees? Personally i don't always ask for them because of a disagreement.
I think the hanging point seems to be that you found the comment passive aggressive but i genuinely didn't.
Right, that's what makes this rabbit hole a bit wild. I'm not even expressing a disagreement, rhetorical or otherwise. What's more, there's nothing wrong with doing that either. There are circumstances where that's a perfectly appropriate thing to do.
And while I fully agree there absolutely is such a thing as smarmy commenters asking for sources in cases where it's misunderstanding something fundamental about the conversation (e.g. "Shakespeare is good", "oh really? source?!") or frivolous requests for factual information familiar to everyone ("global temperatures are rising? Source!?"), I don't know how someone could read this subthread and feel that my question falls into either of those categories.
And to use this of all things as a moment to die on the hill of advocating for fuzzy boundaries between speculation and fact, which absolutely is something that facilitates misinformation, and to be angry that such a thing would be interpreted as a favorable attitude toward misinformation, is completely baffling.
My sister got taken in by drone conspiracy theories, because for her it was just "obvious" that nobody would ever mistake a plane for a drone.
Meanwhile, aeronautics experts whose job it is to know about this have created an entire lexicon for the various perceptual illusions we experience relating to flight and airborne objects, precisely because it involves conditions where our intuitions fail. Many of them have to do with inability to orient depth, distance, or motion for lights at night.
Every time someone says their speculation is "obvious" it rings every possible alarm bell for someone who has completely lost grasp of the ability to distinguish between facts and speculation.
The road to misinformation is paved with overconfident declarations of the form: "it's so obvious, who needs sources!"
...and then gets hit deadpan with the good old "Source?", like it's some sort of gotcha.
I think people have started to confuse "making logical conclusions without perfect info" with "misinformation"
-
Before certain people start acting like this is advocating for misinformation (which would be an incredible irony...) it's not.
I'm saying if you disagree with what someone supposits, just state so directly. Don't wrap it in a disingenous query for a source.