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.
nabla9 · 58m ago
This is what eating your own dog food looks like when you are selling dog food.
EMIRELADERO · 45m ago
Saved. Thanks for that belly laugh.
echelon · 42m ago
Is this the moment the bubble pops (at least for OpenAI)?
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.
michaelt · 59m ago
Perhaps they had their new AI generate the graphic.
outside1234 · 51m ago
People at OpenAI are the top of their field. It is not sloppiness in this crowd.
ceejayoz · 20m ago
People at the top of their field can be deeply sloppy at times.
teaearlgraycold · 35m ago
I don't think the PR people at OpenAI are at the top of their field.
ReverseCold · 7m ago
Honestly? They might be.
marvinborner · 2h ago
This should also include the chart on "Coding deception" [1] which is quite deceptive (50.0 is not in fact less than 47.4)
I pasted the image of the chart into ChatGPT-5 and prompted it with
>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.
qwertox · 2h ago
Both the submission and your link took me way too long to see what's the issue here.
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?
panarky · 1h ago
Since everyone assumes GPT hallucinated these charts, the truth must be that they're 100% pure, organic, unadulterated human fuckups.
croes · 1h ago
Doesn’t matter. Either way is bad
datadrivenangel · 1h ago
Either way is bad. Intentionally human made and approved is worse than machine generated and not reviewed. Malicious versus sloppy.
No comments yet
windowdoor · 1h ago
My unjustified and unscientific opinion is that AI makes you stupid.
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.
nicce · 54m ago
It also scares me how good they are in appealing and social engineering. They have made me feel good about poor judgment and bad decision at least twice (which I noticed later on, still in time). New, strict system prompt and they give the opposite opinion and recommend against their previous suggestion. They are so good at arguing that they can justify almost anything and make you believe that this is what you should do unless you are among the 1% experts in the topic.
lacy_tinpot · 40m ago
> They are so good at arguing that they can justify almost anything
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...
lacy_tinpot · 41m ago
AI being used to completely off load thinking is a total misuse of the technology.
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.
II2II · 52m ago
No. AI is a tool to make ourselves look stupid. Suggesting that it makes people stupid suggest that they are even looking at the output.
chilmers · 1h ago
That one is so obviously wrong that it makes me wonder if someone mislabelled the chart, but perhaps I'm being too optimistic.
If that’s the case, it’s mislabelled and should have read “17%” which would better the visual.
mwigdahl · 1h ago
It's been fixed on the OpenAI website.
datadrivenangel · 1h ago
Added!
p1necone · 1h ago
This half makes sense to me - 'deception' is an undesirable quality in an llm, so less of it is 'better/more' from their audiences perspective.
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.
JBiserkov · 1h ago
> 'deception' is an undesirable quality in an llm, so less of it is 'better/more' from their audiences perspective
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
I_am_tiberius · 2h ago
It would be interesting to know how this occurred. I assume there may have been last-minute high-level feedback suggesting: "We can't let users see that the new model is only slightly better than the old one. Adjust the y-axis to make the improvement appear more significant."
yoyohello13 · 2h ago
It’s genuinely terrifying that people this incompetent have so much money and power.
fullshark · 1h ago
It’s more terrifying that no one cares about the truth it seems anywhere. Vibeworld, we are all selling vaporware and if you don’t build it who cares move into the next hype cycle that pumps the stock / gets VC funding. Absurd industry.
pesus · 37m ago
We're feeling the effects of living in a post-truth society more and more every day. It's pretty terrifying.
m_herrlich · 2h ago
It might not incompetent to assume the audience is not very discerning
aydyn · 2h ago
OpenAI is currently getting dunked on, on all major platforms. It is incompetent.
throwawayoldie · 1h ago
People reading Hacker News are the target audience, and here we are, discerning.
Invictus0 · 1h ago
Speak for yourself!
throwawayoldie · 1h ago
I only ever do. But I rephrased my post to make my meaning clearer. Nice discernment there.
01HNNWZ0MV43FF · 1h ago
Hey, could be malice
ElijahLynn · 1h ago
The magic that is ChatGPT is definitely not incompetence.
They may not be perfect, but they provided a lot of value to many different industries including coding.
danpalmer · 1h ago
Maybe they asked GPT-5 to update slides.
qustrolabe · 1h ago
GPT-5 would've caught this mismatch for sure
datadrivenangel · 1h ago
Claude and ChatGPT actually took me several prompts to get them to identify this. They recognized from a screenshot that labeled axes that start at zero can be misleading, but missed the actual issue.
nonhaver · 4m ago
thats hilarious actually. gives credence to the gpt theory haha
macNchz · 1h ago
That seemingly depends a bit on how hard you ask it to think, or how hard it decides to think based on your question.
danpalmer · 29m ago
"ChatGPT, this slide deck feels a bit luke warm, help me make a better impression"
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.
outside1234 · 1h ago
There is a smell of desperation around OpenAI, so I wouldn't be surprised if this level of hypevibing came from the top.
lnenad · 2h ago
I mean this is the industry standard. For example every time Nvidia dumps a new GPU into the ether, they do the same thing. Apple with M series CPUs. They even go a step further and compare a few generations back.
datadrivenangel · 2h ago
It's dishonest and the multiple examples in the same presentation tell you what you need to know about the credibility of the presenters
zigzag312 · 1h ago
There's only one error, bar height for o3. Somehow height uses value from 4o, which seems like some sort of copy paste error.
EDIT: I was looking just at the first chart. I didn't see there's more below.
croes · 1h ago
Did you miss the picture below where the bar for 50% is lower than the bar for 47.4%
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 · 59m ago
Oh, I did miss it. Thanks!
andrewstuart2 · 1h ago
The other chart on that slide was actually to scale. My suspicion is that it was super rushed to the deadline for this presentation and they maybe didn't use excel or anything automatic for the charts, so they look better, and they missed the detail due to time pressure.
sbaidon94 · 3m ago
What a perfect way to encapsulate the zeitgeist
welder · 12m ago
At first I thought this was metrics about vibe coding... but it's not, that's WakaTime
interweb_tube · 2h ago
I'll always invest in a chart that's more pink than gray.
Eji1700 · 38m ago
OpenAI has always known that "data" is part of marketing, and treated it as such. I don't think this is intentional, but they damn well knew, even back in the dota 2 days, how to present data in such a way as to overstate the results and hide the failures.
pryelluw · 28m ago
Similar to the glass demonstration on the cybertruck.
subtlesoftware · 1h ago
The 69.1 column has the same height as the 30.8 column. My guess is they just duplicated the 30.8 column and forgot to adjust the height to the number, which passed a cursory check because it was simply lower than the new model.
This doesn't explain the 50.0 column height though.
chilmers · 1h ago
Eyeballing it, that bar looks to be around 15% in height. Typing "50" instead of "15" is a plausible typo. Albeit, one you might expect from a high-schooler giving a class presentation, not in a flagship launch by one of the most hyped startups in history.
Just remember, everyone involved with these presentations is getting a guaranteed $1.5 million bonus. Then cry a little.
dragonwriter · 1h ago
> The 69.1 column has the same height as the 30.8 column. My guess is they just duplicated the 30.8 column and forgot to adjust the height to the number
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.
datadrivenangel · 1h ago
People interested in misleading data visualization should look into Alberto Cairo's Book: How Charts Lie
44za12 · 2h ago
That was quick, vibe coded, I presume?
datadrivenangel · 2h ago
The CSS animations are very revealing on that front from a performance perspective.
teaearlgraycold · 2h ago
I tend to blame performance issues on the developer writing the code on a top of the line computer. There are too many WebGL effects on startup websites that were built to run on a M4 Max.
thewebguyd · 2h ago
> There are too many WebGL effects on startup websites that were built to run on a M4 Max.
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.
p1necone · 1h ago
Develop on a super computer, test on $200 laptop - not really any suffering that way.
01HNNWZ0MV43FF · 1h ago
At my work every dev had two machines, which was great. The test machine is cattle, you don't install GCC on it, you reflash it whenever you need, and you test on it routinely. And it's also the cheapest model a customer might have. Then your dev machine is a beast with your kitten packages installed on it.
teaearlgraycold · 1h ago
I wouldn't go that far, but maybe split the difference at a modern i3 or the lowest spec Mac from last year.
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.
p1necone · 1h ago
Tbh even the absolute lowest spec Mx macs are insanely powerful, probably best to test on a low end x86 laptop.
universenz · 1h ago
No no no.. go one better for the Mac. It should be whichever device/s which are next to be made legacy from Apple’s 7 year support window. That way you’re actually catering to the lowest common denominator.
datadrivenangel · 2h ago
Yeah this is somewhat stuttery on an M2 mac.
seba_dos1 · 2h ago
It's less than 200 lines of CSS. Easily doable by a human in 30 minutes.
mattgreenrocks · 1h ago
I love how this has to be defended now, as if that was somehow unthinkable from a domain expert.
zmmmmm · 25m ago
it's so funny that it tried to deceive everybody about it's deceptiveness
mcs5280 · 1h ago
How else can you make stonks go up perpetually?
eddythompson80 · 1h ago
Weren’t some people, unironically, expecting AgI announcement for GPT-5. Like I have heard a water cooler (well, coffee machine) conversation about how OpenAI master plan is to release GPT-5 and invoke the AGI clause in their contract with Microsoft. I was shaking my head so hard,
JBiserkov · 55m ago
They are both using the "capitalist" definition of AGI, that is "an AI system that can generate at least $100 billion in profits". I think it's short for "A Gazillion Idiots"...
It is actually incredible how they managed to find an even
more unscientific definition than "can perform a majority of economically useful tasks." At least that definition requires a little thought to recognize it has problems[1]. $100bn in profits is just cartoonishly dumb, like you asked a high schooler to come up with a definition.
[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.
KaoruAoiShiho · 1h ago
I think this is less chart crime than an editing mistake.
datadrivenangel · 1h ago
They had two misleading charts... not ideal
0xCafeBabee · 1h ago
Looks like the only thing getting smarter here is the marketing team.
enb · 2h ago
Can’t scroll on safari ios
acenturyandabit · 2h ago
The chart is the entire thing. Check if the numbers match the heights of the rectangles ;)
eps · 2h ago
Still only half of it is visible in the landscape mode and the page is not scrollable.
datadrivenangel · 1h ago
Should be fixed now.
outside1234 · 1h ago
I'm going to put a vote in for Scam Altman on this one
nnurmanov · 1h ago
In the marketing world 1>2:)
dmezzetti · 1h ago
Impressive that this knocked GPT-5 from the top.
an0malous · 1h ago
Nature is healing
bo1024 · 1h ago
Aw, I really wanted this to be a tool to produce your own misleading vibecharts
rvz · 2h ago
Remember, we are in a post-truth era. Getting to "AGI" might even mean cooking the numbers if they have to so that hopefully no-one notices.
schappim · 2h ago
Imagine being the person who made the mistake when creating the gpt-5 chart.
No, i mean what is the context. Who created this originally? Where is the link to openai or whoever creating this chart, or context behind the misinformation if any. I check the comments and stories about chatgpt5 and there is no reference to this, so im at a loss.
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.
sp527 · 1h ago
It's such an egregiously bad error, you almost have to wonder if Altman did it intentionally for publicity (which does seem to be working).
p1necone · 1h ago
I think the stock market has just proven time and time again that a large proportion of investors (and VCs) do basically no due diligence or critical thinking about what they're throwing money at, and businesses actually making profit hasn't mattered for a long time - which was the only thing tethering their value to the actual concrete stuff they're building. If you can hype it well your share price goes up, and even the investors that do do due proper diligence can see that and so they're all in too.
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.
mattgreenrocks · 1h ago
It’s vibes all the way down :)
sp527 · 1h ago
Oh trust me I know. I worked at Palantir well before it was public and had firsthand experience of Alex Karp. He would draw incomprehensible stick figure box diagrams on a whiteboard for F100 CEOs, ramble some nonsensical jargon, and somehow close a multimillion dollar pilot. The guy is better at faking it than high-end escorts. It doesn't surprise me that this has fooled degens around the world, from Wall Street to r/wallstreetbets. Incredibly, even Damadoran has thrown in the towel and opened a position, while still admitting he has no idea what they do.
ilaksh · 1h ago
This web page is cancer for my phone. Almost died.
thimabi · 1h ago
Poor OpenAI workers, they worked so hard for the GPT-5 release and now discussions about the model are side by side with discussions about their badly-done graphs.
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…
mepiethree · 14m ago
They all got $1.5 million today so I’m not too worried about the poor workers.
alfalfasprout · 26m ago
I've been using GPT-5 heavily today. It's genuinely very underwhelming. Sonnet 4 seems to outperform it in every real-world task I use it with.
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.
[1]: https://youtu.be/0Uu_VJeVVfo?t=1840
>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.
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?
No comments yet
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...
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.
If that’s the case, it’s mislabelled and should have read “17%” which would better the visual.
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
They may not be perfect, but they provided a lot of value to many different industries including coding.
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.
EDIT: I was looking just at the first chart. I didn't see there's more below.
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.
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.
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.
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.
0 - https://www.vibechart.net/
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.
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.
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.