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

Introducing deep research

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 445 posts

Re: Introducing deep research

#151

Post by azinman2 »

autoconfig wrote: post #89
hi_hi wrote: post #56

This 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.

When things are easy, you’re going to take the easy path even if it means quality goes down. It’s about trade offs. If you had to do it yourself, perhaps quality would have been higher because you had no other choice.

Lots of kids don’t want to do homework. That said, previously many would because there wasn’t another choice. But now they can just ask ChatGPT for the answers they’ll write that down verbatim with zero learning taking place.

Caring isn’t a binary thing or works in isolation.

Re: Introducing deep research

#152

Post by rpcope1 »

ldjkfkdsjnv wrote: post #76

So 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

> especially as we are likely witnessing AGI come to life

Man, I've got a great deal on some oceanfront property in Wyoming for you.

Re: Introducing deep research

#153

Post by observationist »

spyckie2 wrote: post #133

Is this ability really a prerequisite to AGI and ASI? Reasoning, problem solving, research validation - at the fundamental outset it is all refinement thinking. Research is one of those areas where I remain skeptical it is that important because the only valid proof is in the execution outcome, not the compiled answer. For instance you can research all you want about the best vacuum on the internet but until you try…

It's a direction in a vast landscape, not a feature of itself - being better at different tasks, like search generally, and research in conjunction with reasoning, gets the model closer to AGI. An AGI will be able to do these tasks - so the point of the research is to have more Venn diagrams of capabilities like these to help narrow down the view on things that might actually be fundamental mechanisms involved in AGI.

Moravec detailed the idea of a landscape of human capabilities slowly being submerged by AI capabilities, and the point at which AI can do anything a human can, in practice or in principle, we'll know for certain we've reached truly general AI. This idea includes things like feeling pain and pleasure, planning, complex social, oral, and ethical dynamics, and anything else you can possibly think of as relevant to human intelligence. Deep Research is just another island being slowly submerged by the relentless and relentlessly accelerating flood.

Re: Introducing deep research

#154

Post by 6gvONxR4sf7o »

There are some people in the blogosphere who are known experts in their niche or even niche-famous because they write popular useful stuff. And there are a ton more people who write useful stuff because they want that 'exposure.' At least, they do in the very broadest sense of writing it for another human to read it. I wonder if these people will keep writing when their readership is all bots. Dead internet here we come.

Re: Introducing deep research

#155

Post by dauhak »

hi_hi wrote: post #119
autoconfig wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Because maybe you want to, but you have a boss breathing down your neck and KPIs to meet and you haven't slept properly in days and just need a win, so you get the AI to put together some impressive looking graphs and stats that will look impressive in that client showcase thats due in a few hours. Things aren't quite so black and white in reality.

I mean those same conditions already just lead the human to cutting corners and making stuff up themselves. You're describing the problem where bad incentives/conditions lead to sloppy work, that happens with or without AI

Catching errors/validating work is obviously a different process when they're coming from an AI vs a human, but I don't see how it's fundamentally that different here. If the outputs are heavily cited then that might go someway into being able to more easily catch and correct slip-ups

Re: Introducing deep research

#156

Post by pama »

rvnx wrote: post #67
tmnvdb wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only if you are asking questions at the level of a cutting edge benchmark

This is one of the actual questions: > In Greek mythology, who was Jason's maternal great-grandfather? https://www.google.com/search?q=In+Greek+mythology%2C+who+wa...

No it is not an actual question on this exam. From the paper: “To ensure question quality and integrity, we enforce strict submission criteria. Questions should be precise, unambiguous, solvable, and non-searchable, ensuring models cannot rely on memorization or simple retrieval methods. All submissions must be original work or non-trivial syntheses of published information, though contributions from unpublished research are acceptable. Questions typically require graduate-level expertise or test knowledge of highly specific topics (e.g., precise historical details, trivia, local customs) and have specific, unambiguous answers…”. (Emphasis mine)

Re: Introducing deep research

#157

Post by [deleted] »

snewman wrote: post #62
cye131 wrote: post #55

Does anyone actually have access to this? It says available for pro users on the website today - I have pro via my employer but see no "deep research" option in the message composer.

Two different people I know with pro subscriptions report not having access yet.

[deleted]

Re: Introducing deep research

#158

Post by qgin »

ldjkfkdsjnv wrote: post #76

So 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

Never underestimate HN's capacity to be cynical about literally everything

Re: Introducing deep research

#159

Post by seanmcdirmid »

6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: post #154

There are some people in the blogosphere who are known experts in their niche or even niche-famous because they write popular useful stuff. And there are a ton more people who write useful stuff because they want that 'exposure.' At least, they do in the very broadest sense of writing it for another human to read it. I wonder if these people will keep writing when their readership is all bots. Dead internet here we c…

I'm all for writing just for the bots, if I can figure it out. A lot of academic papers aren't really read anyways, just briefly glanced at so they can be cited together, large publications like journal pubs or dissertations even less so. But the ability to add to a world of knowledge that is very easy to access by people who want to use it...that is very appealing to me as an author. No more trudging through a bunch of papers with titles that might be relevant to what I want to know about...and no more trudging through my papers, I'm OK with that.

Re: Introducing deep research

#160

Post by optimalsolver »

adriand wrote: post #30

Feels like only a matter of time before these crawlers are blocked from large swathes of the internet. I understand that they’re already prohibited from Reddit and YouTube. If that spreads, this approach might be in trouble.

Big Tech Podcast listener?
Post reply on HN