OpenAI has a deep bench. I bet they pushed this out to change the narrative about deepseek
Also named specifically to muddle the SEO for the term "deep." Nothing that OpenAI does is unintentional.
[deleted]
Introducing deep research
81–90 of 445 posts
Re: Introducing deep research
#82I think this looks cool. Apparently unlike everyone else on this website?
Re: Introducing deep research
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
Especially this is not a breakthrough justifying a 340B USD valuation, but rather the work that junior developers can do; implement a loop of Bing Searches connected to an LLM.
Peak HN comment
Doesn't make it untrue.
Agents that can search the internet exist for a while now and have been essentially solved and happily used in platforms like Perplexity.
It's really "meh", very far from revolutionary.
Keep in mind this company is trying to convince everybody they need 500B USD now (through the Stargate project).
Re: Introducing deep research
#84So much cynicism and hate in these comments, especially as we are likely witnessing AGI come to life. Its still early, but it might be coming. Where is the excitement? This is an interesting time to be alive. HN has a huge cultural problem that makes this website almost irrelevant. All the interesting takes have moved to X/twitter
HN is and has always been quite negative/pessimistic/cynical in general. That Dropbox comment was quite a long time ago already.
Re: Introducing deep research
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also named specifically to muddle the SEO for the term "deep." Nothing that OpenAI does is unintentional.
It's more likely this is a response to Gemini Deep Research released in December https://blog.google/products/gemini/google-gemini-deep-resea...
That Google product isnt that good, it can't really replace research done by a person.
Re: Introducing deep research
#86The accuracy of this tool does not matter. This is exclusively designed for box ticking "reports" that nobody reads and a produced for the sake of itself.
99% of corpo upper management slide deck work. ai only makes more of this useless pencil-neck board of directors slop.
Re: Introducing deep research
#87If I understood the graphs correctly, it only achieves 20% pass rate on their internal tests. So I have to wait 30min and pay a lot of money just to sift through walls of most likely incorrect text? Unless the possibility of hallucinations is negligible, this is just way too much content to review at once. The process probably needs to be a lot more iterative.
I mean you want it to grill your steak and eat it for you too?
I mean I too can complain that my iPhone doesn’t automatically screen out spammers and send my mom flowers on Mother’s Day.
Re: Introducing deep research
#88If I understood the graphs correctly, it only achieves 20% pass rate on their internal tests. So I have to wait 30min and pay a lot of money just to sift through walls of most likely incorrect text? Unless the possibility of hallucinations is negligible, this is just way too much content to review at once. The process probably needs to be a lot more iterative.
Maybe. Not enough data to say. Say it does a days worth of work in a query. It is sensible to use if it takes less than a day to review ~5 days worth of work. I don't know if we're near that threshold yet but conceptually this would work well for actual research where the amount of preparation is large compared to the amount of output written.
And eyeballing the benchmarks, it'll probably reach a >50% rate per query by the end of the year. Seems to double every model or two.
Re: Introducing deep research
#89This is terrifying. Even though they acknowledge the issues with hallucinations/errors, that is going to be completely overlooked by everyone using this, and then injecting the outputs into their own powerpoints. Management Consulting was bad enough before the ability to mass produce these graphs and stats on a whim. At least there was some understanding behind the scenes of where the numbers came from, and sources w…
Either you care about being correct or you don't. If you don't care then it doesn't matter whether you made it up or the AI did. If you care then you'll fact check before publishing. I don't see why this changes.
Re: Introducing deep research
#90This is terrifying. Even though they acknowledge the issues with hallucinations/errors, that is going to be completely overlooked by everyone using this, and then injecting the outputs into their own powerpoints. Management Consulting was bad enough before the ability to mass produce these graphs and stats on a whim. At least there was some understanding behind the scenes of where the numbers came from, and sources w…
Think of it like a vaccine.
The majority of human written consultant reports are already complete rubbish. Low accuracy, low signal-to-noise, generic platitudes in a quantity-over-quality format.
LLMs are innoculating people to this kind of low information value content.
People who produce LLM quality output, are now being accused of using LLMs, and can no longer pretend to be adding value.
The result of this is going to be higher quality expectations from consultants and a shaking out of people who produce word vommit rather than accurate, insightful, contextually relevent information.