<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>OpenAI GPT-5 System Card · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2601.03267/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2601.03267/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>OpenAI GPT-5 System Card — mentioned by camgunz</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47696124</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2601.03267:47696124</guid><pubDate>Wed, 08 Apr 2026 20:54:24 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; I don&amp;#x27;t think the spirit of the original article (not your comments to be fair) captured this, hence the challenge. I believe we are on the same page here. No. GPT-5 has a 40% hallucination rate [0] on SimpleQA [1] without web searching. The SimpleQA questions meet your criteria of &amp;quot;2-3 pages of text content. Unless 5.4 + web searching erases that (I bet it doesn&amp;#x27;t!) these are bullshit machines. [0]: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2601.03267 [1]: https://github.com/openai/simple-evals&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2601.03267/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.CL</category></item></channel></rss>
