It's interesting because the latest Cellebrite data sheets showed them to support all iPhones including e.g. unbooted, but apparently not lockdown mode? It also showed they hadn't cracked GrapheneOS.
It looks like you do pull shenanigans like these [0]. The person you're replying to even mentioned "ChatGPT 5.2", but you're specifically talking only about the API, while making it sound like it applies across the board. Also appreciate the attempt to further hide this degradation of the product they paid for from users by blocking the prompt used to figure this out.
Yes, independent of the API speedup, we also recently reduced the thinking effort in ChatGPT. Our intent here was purely user experience, not cost savings. People have complained about the slow speeds of the Thinking models for a long time (myself included), so we recently retuned it to be faster, at the expense of less thoroughness.
I won't BS you that costs are never part of our decision making. If costs didn't matter, we'd have unlimited rate limits and 10M token context windows and subscription pricing of $0. But as someone in the room where these decisions are made, I can honestly report that our goal is almost always trying to figure out how to make people happier, not trick them. We're trying to fairly earn subscriptions, not scam anyone. In the cases where we have accidentally misled people (e.g., saying voice mode was weeks away), it was optimistic planning, not nefarious intent.
API model behavior is guaranteed to nearly stay the same (modulo standard non-determinism, bugs, etc.). ChatGPT is harder to promise, not because we pull more shenanigans there, but just because we might tweak system prompts, add/remove tools, run A/B tests, etc. that vary performance a bit. But we definitely don't do things like quantize during busy parts of the day or nerf models after publishing evals - that would feel pretty shady.
I’m so disappointed by this. It’s immediately noticeable that the results for the types of queries I make are worse. Queries using 5.2 Thinking now return very quickly, but with noticeably worse results.
Chatgpt 5.2 in the past couple of weeks has gotten noticeably worse for me to the point that I stopped using it and just ask claude code questions instead.
> The hysteria over "assault weapons" basically outlawed guns that _looked_ scary, while not meaningfully making anyone safer.
This wasn't the goal by the congresspeople, and that them having fired a gun would've changed that goal.
That was the goal. They knew they weren't going to be able to pass any kind of legislation that actually msde people safer, but they wanted to look like they were "doing something".
This is incredibly common. It's the primary reason behind the TSA and its continuous expansion, for example.
> It's the primary reason behind the TSA and its continuous expansion, for example.
I'd also add that the TSA is a good reason why we shouldn't expect talking legislators to gun ranges would make better gun laws.
The reason the TSA is what it is is because legislators fly more than most people. If you've ever been to DC you see a lot of this sort of security theater everywhere.
So much of the TSAs budget should be redirected towards what would actually make long distance travel safer, improving the ATC and Amtrak.
If the modern right's obsession with "ivory tower academics" was real instead of a stick with which to beat ideas they don't like, the field they'd focus on would be economics, not gender studies. Most of it is astrology for those who like to wear suits. It has been decades since the complexity and chaos factor of the real world has overtaken the ability to make meaningful correlations or predictions in all but the most straightforward cases where one institute (e.g. a central bank) controls everything.
It's made even worse by the great bias towards "everything about globalism and capitalism is obviously fantastic for the world!".
This case is such a prime example of both of the above. Firstly, the one-off China event having such a big impact on its own that general theories are entirely irrelevant. Second, of course
> "Now that those were swept away—they were, he said, merely a “temporary phenomenon”—the catch-up growth that economic theory predicted had finally arrived. Globalization was working; development was succeeding; the gap between rich and poor countries was closing.
stanford.edu, and the appendix is there. In fact on the link you gave the appendix is cut short - looks like an OCR/copying issue but then at a glance it doesn't seem to happen elsewhere which is a little suspicious. I'm not sure what you're talking about.
I must have somehow missed that one; glad that ancient site without HTTPS is still up. Here are the two top results I get from searching for it from Stanford[0][1], and you can see that this section of the appendix is missing. Google's also has it missing[2]. So no, I don't think I'm crazy.
Touché! I recant my conspiratorial thinking. Though I still think it's odd that the other sources I posted don't have it; one is what's actually being taught in Stanford courses and the other is Google's own hosting of their founders' paper.
reply