The release of OpenAI GPT-5 marks a significant turning point in AI development, but maybe not the one most enthusiasts had envisioned. The latest version seems to reveal the natural ceiling of current language model capabilities with incremental rather than revolutionary improvements over GPT-4.
Sid and Andrew call back to some of the model-building basics that have led to this point to give their assessment of the early days of the GPT-5 release.
The recent release of GPT-5 by OpenAI has sparked significant discussion in the AI community, but not for the reasons one might expect. Rather than celebrating revolutionary advancements, many experts and users find themselves questioning whether this version measures up to the significance that a major release should. This reaction represents a pivotal moment in our understanding of the limitations facing large language models and potentially signals the end of exponential growth in this particular AI paradigm.
The concept of "Moore's Law for AI" has been a guiding principle for many in the field, suggesting that AI capabilities would double at regular intervals similar to how transistor density doubled every two years in computer chips. However, the underwhelming performance improvements in GPT-5 compared to its predecessor suggest we're witnessing this law hitting a natural ceiling. The fundamental issue appears to be data exhaustion – these models have essentially consumed all available high-quality human-written text on the Internet, including books, articles, websites, and discussion forums. Without new sources of quality data, dramatic improvements become increasingly difficult.
Synthetic data generation has been proposed as a solution, but as discussed in the AI Fundamentalists podcast, this approach faces inherent limitations. Synthetic data created by AI models tends to lack the originality, nuance, and creative value of human-generated content. When models train on their own outputs or variations of them, they risk reinforcing existing patterns rather than discovering genuinely new capabilities. This creates a ceiling effect that's difficult to overcome regardless of architectural improvements or computational resources thrown at the problem.
OpenAI's positioning with this release also reveals a strategic identity crisis. At first, they were mostly for consumer applications, with Anthropic being the better choice for businesses. GPT-5 seems to be trying to serve both markets without fully satisfying either. Some users say that the model is less creative and expressive. This may be because of efforts to make the model more reliable and less likely to make people hallucinate for business applications. The latter is a good thing; however, this tradeoff comes at the cost of the unguarded capabilities that made earlier versions seem compelling for creative use.
Perhaps most concerning is the revelation about healthcare usage of these systems. Despite having no genuine understanding of human biology or medicine, these models are increasingly being used for health advice and even pseudo-therapy. LLMs’ confident tone makes this especially dangerous. Users may think the advice is right even when it’s not. This highlights the ethical complications that arise when technology outpaces our ability to properly regulate and control it.
Looking forward, the AI Fundamentalists suggest we may see a renaissance of alternative AI approaches. Reinforcement learning, neuro-symbolic systems, and expert systems may become more popular as researchers realize the problems with the current LLM model. Instead of a single way to use AI, we may be entering a time where special systems designed for specific tasks become the norm. LLMs will be just one tool in a larger AI toolkit. This paradigm shift would represent a more mature understanding of AI's capabilities and limitations, moving us away from the hype cycle and toward more practical applications of artificial intelligence.
Connect with them to comment on your favorite topics:
