Comment by slacktivism123
18 hours ago
>Just not the GPT-5 series! My experiments so far put Gemini 2.5 at the top of the pack, to the point where I'd almost trust it for some tasks
Got it. The non-experts are holding it wrong!
The laymen are told "just use the app" or "just use the website". No need to worry about API keys or routers or wrapper scripts that way!
Sure.
Yet the laymen are expected to maintain a mental model of the failure modes and intended applications of Grok 4 vs Grok 4 Fast vs Gemini 2.5 Pro vs GPT-4.1 Mini vs GPT-5 vs Claude Sonnet 4.5...
It's a moving target. The laymen read the marketing puffery around each new model release and think the newest model is even more capable.
"This model sounds awesome. OpenAI does it again! Surely it can OCR my invoice PDFs this time!"
I mean, look at it:
GPT‑5 not only outperforms previous models on benchmarks and answers questions more quickly, but—most importantly—is more useful for real-world queries.
GPT‑5 is our best model yet for health-related questions, empowering users to be informed about and advocate for their health. The model scores significantly higher than any previous model on HealthBench , an evaluation we published earlier this year based on realistic scenarios and physician-defined criteria.
GPT‑5 is much smarter across the board, as reflected by its performance on academic and human-evaluated benchmarks, particularly in math, coding, visual perception, and health. It sets a new state of the art across math (94.6% on AIME 2025 without tools), real-world coding (74.9% on SWE-bench Verified, 88% on Aider Polyglot), multimodal understanding (84.2% on MMMU), and health (46.2% on HealthBench Hard)
The model excels across a range of multimodal benchmarks, spanning visual, video-based, spatial, and scientific reasoning. Stronger multimodal performance means ChatGPT can reason more accurately over images and other non-text inputs—whether that’s interpreting a chart, summarizing a photo of a presentation, or answering questions about a diagram.
And on and on it goes...
"The non-experts are holding it wrong!"
We aren't talking about non-experts here. Go read https://www.thalamusgme.com/blogs/methodology-for-creation-a...
They're clearly competent developers (despite mis-identifying GPT-5-mini as GPT-5o-mini) - but they also don't appear to have evaluated the alternative models, presumably because of this bit:
"This solution was selected given Thalamus utilizes Microsoft Azure for cloud hosting and has an enterprise agreement with them, as well as with OpenAI, which improves overall data and model security"
I agree with your general point though. I've been a pretty consistent voice in saying that this stuff is extremely difficult to use.
> The laymen
The solution architect, leads, product managers and engineers that were behind this feature are now laymen who shouldn't do their due diligence on a system to be used to do an extremely important task? They shouldn't test this system across a wide range of input pdfs for accuracy and accept nothing below 100%?