Tale as old as time. When the retina display macs first came out, we say web design suddenly no longer optimized for 1080p or less displays (and at the time, 1376x768 was the default resolution for windows laptops).
As much suffering as it'd be, I swear we'd end up with better software if we stopped giving devs top of the line machines and just issued whatever budget laptop is on sale at the local best buy on any given day.
It would be awesome if Apple or someone else could have an in-OS slider to drop the specs down to that of other chips. It'd probably be a lot of work to make it seamless, but being able to click a button and make an M4 Max look like an M4 would be awesome for testing.
What were they even thinking? Don't they care about this? Is their AI generating all their charts now and they don't even bother to review it?
How many charts will the person create, how many the machine?
That's based solely on my own personal vibes after regularly using LLMs for a while. I became less willing to and capable of thinking critically and carefully.
This honestly just sounds like distilled intelligence. Because a huge pitfall for very intelligent people is that they're really good at convincing themselves of really bad ideas.
That but commoditized en masse to all of humanity will undoubtedly produce tragic results. What an exciting future...
1. The output is just good enough at language we perceive the text as a person talking to us.
2. The character seems totally invested in serving you and invests unlimited amounts of personal time and mental effort towards your needs.
3. They are intrinsically shameless.
Taken together, these mean we are drawn to judging the fictional character like a human, once we do that... No human would burn hours of their life tirelessly brown-nosing me for no real payoff without breaking character or having any cognitive dissonance... So they must be my friend, and any issues are either honest mistakes or misunderstandings on my part, right?
But at the same time that this technology can seemingly be misused and cause really psychological harm is kind of a new thing it feels like. Right? Like there are reports of AI Psychosis, don't know how real it is, but if it's real I don't know any other tool that's really produced that kind of side effect.
However, I can't think of a sensible way to actually translate that to a bar chart where you're comparing it to other things that don't have the same 'less is more' quality (the general fuckery with graphs not starting at 0 aside - how do you even decide '0' when the number goes up as it approaches it), and what they've done seems like total nonsense.
So if that ^ is why 50.0 is lower than 47.4 ... but why is then 86.7 not lower than 9.0? Or 4.8 not lower than 2.1
If that’s the case, it’s mislabelled and should have read “17%” which would better the visual.
>there seems to be a mistake in this chart ... can you find what it is?
Here is what it told me:
> Yes — the likely mistake is in the first set of bars (“Coding deception”). The pink bar for GPT-5 (with thinking) is labeled 50.0%, while the white bar for OpenAI o3 is labeled 47.4% — but visually, the white bar is drawn shorter than the pink bar, even though its percentage is slightly lower.
So they definitely should have had ChatGPT review their own slides.
Ok, I see there was a bug on the site and it wasn't scrolling on iOS. They fixed that now, although the background context is still unclear, and none of the links in the site seem to explain it.
By and large people do not have the integrity to even care that numbers are obviously being fudged, and they know that the market is going to respond positively to blustering and bald faced lies. It's a self reinforcing cycle.
This doesn't explain the 50.0 column height though.
Just remember, everyone involved with these presentations is getting a guaranteed $1.5 million bonus. Then cry a little.
Why, unless specifically for the purpose of making it possible to do inaccurate and misleading inconsistencies off this type, would you make charts for a professional presentation by a mechanism that involved separately manually creating the bars and the labels in the first place? I mean, maybe, if you were doing something artistic with the style that wasn't supported in charting software you might, but these are the most basic generic bar charts except for the inconsistencies.
https://gizmodo.com/leaked-documents-show-openai-has-a-very-...
[1] If a computer can perform the task its economic usefulness drops to near zero, and new economically useful tasks which computers can't do will take its place.
I don’t believe they intentionally fucked up the graphs, but it is nonetheless funny to see how much of an impact that has had. Talk about bad luck…
Lots of hype from Sam Altman and nothing to really show for it.
https://openai.com/index/introducing-gpt-5/
So, maybe this is just sloppiness and not intentionally misleading. But still, not a good look when the company burning through billions of dollars in cash and promising to revolutionize all human activity can't put together a decent powerpoint.
GPT-5 has to be one of the most underwhelming releases to date, and that's fresh on the heels of the "gift" of GPT-OSS.
The hottest news out of OpenAI lately is who Mark Zuckerberg has added to Meta's "Superintelligence" roster.
> Hmm. We’re having trouble finding that site. > We can’t connect to the server at www.vibechart.net.
Imagine a revolutionary technology comes out that has the potential to increase quality of life, longevity and health, productivity and the standard of living, or lead to never before seen economic prosperity, discover new science, explain things about the universe, or simply give lonely people a positive outlet.
Miraculously, this technology is free to use, available to anyone with an internet connection.
But there was one catch: during its release, an error was made on a chart.
Where should this community focus its attention?
that should be a tell that other things may be rigged to look better than they are
I_am_tiberius•3h ago
yoyohello13•3h ago
m_herrlich•3h ago
aydyn•3h ago
throwawayoldie•2h ago
Invictus0•2h ago
throwawayoldie•2h ago
01HNNWZ0MV43FF•2h ago
ElijahLynn•2h ago
They may not be perfect, but they provided a lot of value to many different industries including coding.
AdieuToLogic•38m ago
fullshark•2h ago
pesus•1h ago
lnenad•3h ago
datadrivenangel•3h ago
andrewstuart2•2h ago
zigzag312•2h ago
EDIT: I was looking just at the first chart. I didn't see there's more below.
croes•2h ago
And even if it’s just one chart. There are 3 or 4 bars (depends on how you count) so they screwed up 33%/25 % of the chart.
Quite an error margin.
zigzag312•1h ago
danpalmer•2h ago
qustrolabe•2h ago
macNchz•2h ago
danpalmer•1h ago
I could completely believe someone who is all-in on the tech, working in marketing, and not really that familiar with the failure modes, using a prompt like this and just missing the bad edit.
datadrivenangel•2h ago
nonhaver•58m ago
outside1234•2h ago