← Back to context Comment by zparky 4 months ago I mean, you both used the exact same prompt, how is OP 'holding it worng'? 3 comments zparky Reply denysvitali 4 months ago Granted that we can't see which model was picked, but one clearly shows that thinking was enabled, the other shows it's not.This just proves the article's point about using cheap models / free versions and complaining about the state of AI.Well done! hbjkhgkytfkytv 4 months ago It was GPT 5.2. Can't remember if I did thinking or not. Note that even after the fallacy was highlighted to the model, it seemed to have a tough time grasping what went wrong. hackable_sand 4 months ago You are proud about baking classism into your little toy?Disgusting
denysvitali 4 months ago Granted that we can't see which model was picked, but one clearly shows that thinking was enabled, the other shows it's not.This just proves the article's point about using cheap models / free versions and complaining about the state of AI.Well done! hbjkhgkytfkytv 4 months ago It was GPT 5.2. Can't remember if I did thinking or not. Note that even after the fallacy was highlighted to the model, it seemed to have a tough time grasping what went wrong. hackable_sand 4 months ago You are proud about baking classism into your little toy?Disgusting
hbjkhgkytfkytv 4 months ago It was GPT 5.2. Can't remember if I did thinking or not. Note that even after the fallacy was highlighted to the model, it seemed to have a tough time grasping what went wrong.
Granted that we can't see which model was picked, but one clearly shows that thinking was enabled, the other shows it's not.
This just proves the article's point about using cheap models / free versions and complaining about the state of AI.
Well done!
It was GPT 5.2. Can't remember if I did thinking or not. Note that even after the fallacy was highlighted to the model, it seemed to have a tough time grasping what went wrong.
You are proud about baking classism into your little toy?
Disgusting