Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

OpenAI O3-Mini

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 944 posts

Re: OpenAI O3-Mini

#231

Post by thenameless7741 »

thot_experiment wrote: post #99
mechagodzilla wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being able to see the thinking trace in R1 is so useful, as you can go back and see if it's getting stuck, making a wrong assumption, missing data, etc. To me that makes it materially more useful than the OpenAI reasoning models, which seem impressive, but are much harder to inspect/debug.

Running it locally lets you INTERJECT IN IT'S THINKING IN REALTIME and I cannot stress enough how useful that is.

Interesting.. In the official API [1], there's no way to prefill the reasoning_content:

> Please note that if the reasoning_content field is included in the sequence of input messages, the API will return a 400 error. Therefore, you should remove the reasoning_content field from the API response before making the API request

So the best I can do is pass the reasoning as part of the context (which means starting over from the beginning).

[1] https://api-docs.deepseek.com/guides/reasoning_model

Re: OpenAI O3-Mini

#233

Post by [deleted] »

JadoJodo wrote: post #56
buyucu wrote: post #23

why should anyone use this when deepseek is free/cheaper? openai is no longer relevant.

I'm going to assume the best in your question and disregard your statement. Reasons to use o3 when deepseek is free/cheaper: - Some companies/users may already have integrated heavily with OpenAI - The expanded feature-set (e.g., function-calling, search) could be very powerful - DeepSeek has deep ties to the Chinese Communist Party and, while the US has its own blackspots, the "steering" of information is far more p…

[deleted]

Re: OpenAI O3-Mini

#234

Post by sangnoir »

lesuorac wrote: post #176
echelon wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no moat, and they have to work even harder. Competition is good.

I really don't think this is true. OpenAI has no moat because they have nothing unique; they're using mostly other people's (like Transformers) architectures and other companies hardware. Their value-prop (moat) is that they've burnt more money than everybody else. That moat is trivially circumvented by lighting a larger pile of money and less trivially by lighting the pile more efficently. OpenAI isn't the only comp…

> That moat is trivially circumvented by lighting a larger pile of money and less trivially by lighting the pile more efficently.

DeepSeek has proven that the latter is possible, which drops a couple of River crossing rocks into the moat.

Re: OpenAI O3-Mini

#235

Post by gundmc »

tdb7893 wrote: post #214
siliconc0w wrote: post #42

The real heated contest here amongst the top AI labs is to see who can come up with the most confusing product names.

It's nice to see Google finally having competition in a space it used to really dominate (though they definitely still are holding their own with all the Gemini naming). I feel like it takes real effort to have product names be this confusing and capricious

Gemini naming seems pretty straightforward at this point. 2.0 is the full model, flash is a smaller/faster/cheaper model, and flash thinking is a smaller/faster/cheaper reasoning model with Cost.

Re: OpenAI O3-Mini

#236

Post by TechDebtDevin »

ipaddr wrote: post #208
TechDebtDevin wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Genuinely curious, What made you choose OpenAI as your preferred api provider? Its always been the least attractive to me.

Who else might be a good choice? Deepseek is down. Who has the cheapest gpt3.5 level or above api

Ive personaly been using Deepseek (which has been better than for 3.5 for a really long time), and Perplexity, which is nice for their built in search. Ive actually been using Deepseek since it was free. Its been generally good for me. Ive mostly chosen both because of pricing as I generally dont use APIs for extermely complex prompts.

Re: OpenAI O3-Mini

#237

Post by ben_w »

logicchains wrote: post #69
georgewsinger wrote: post #57

Did anyone else notice that o3-mini's SWE bench dropped from 61% in the leaked System Card earlier today to 49.3% in this blog post, which puts o3-mini back in line with Claude on real-world coding tasks? Am I missing something?

Maybe they found a need to quantize it further for release, or lobotomise it with more "alignment".

> lobotomise

Anyone can write very fast software if you don't mind it sometimes crashing or having weird bugs.

Why do people try to meme as if AI is different? It has unexpected outputs sometimes, getting it to not do that is 50% "more alignment" and 50% "hallucinate less".

Just today I saw someone get the Amazon bot to roleplay furry erotica. Funny, sure, but it's still obviously a bug that a *sales bot* would do that.

And given these models do actually get stuff wrong, is it really incorrect for them to refuse to help with things they might be dangerous if the user isn't already skilled, like Claude in this story about DIY fusion? https://www.corememory.com/p/a-young-man-used-ai-to-build-a-...

Re: OpenAI O3-Mini

#238

Post by ls_stats »

therein wrote: post #191
OutOfHere wrote: post #58

Wake me up when the full o3 is out.

My guess is it will happen right after Sam Altman's next public freakout about how dangerous this new model they have in store is and how it tried to escape from its confinement and kidnap the alignment operator.

That's pretty much what Altman said about GPT-3 (or 2, I don't remember), he said it was too dangerous to release to the public.

Re: OpenAI O3-Mini

#239

Post by RobinL »

Wow - this is seriously fast (o3-mini), and my initial impressions are very favourable. I was asking it to layout quite a complex html form from a schema and it did a very good job.

Looking at the comments on here and the benchmark results I was expecting it to be a bit meh, but initial impressions are quite the opposite

I was expecting it to perhaps be a marginal improvement for complex things that need a lot of 'reasoning', but it seems it's a bit improvement for simple things that you need doing fast

Post reply on HN