4o and o4 at the same time. Excellent work on the product naming, whoever did that.
Oh, that was Altman Sam.
OpenAI o3 and o4-mini
171–180 of 527 posts
Re: OpenAI o3 and o4-mini
#172So at this point OpenAI has 6 reasoning models, 4 flagship chat models, and 7 cost optimized models. So that's 17 models in total and that's not even counting their older models and more specialized ones. Compare this with Anthropic that has 7 models in total and 2 main ones that they promote. This is just getting to be a bit much, seems like they are trying to cover for the fact that they haven't actually done much.…
Im old enough to remember the mystery and hype before o*/o1/strawberry that was supposed to be essentially AGI. We had serious news outlets write about senior people at OpenAI quitting because o1 was SkyNet Now we're up to o4, AGI is still not even in near site (depending on your definition, I know). And OpenAI is up to about 5000 employees. I'd think even before AGI a new model would be able to cover for at least 45…
Yeah, I don't know exactly what at an AGI model will look like, but I think it would have more than 200k context window.
Re: OpenAI o3 and o4-mini
#173This is a mess. I do follow AI news, and do no know if this is "better/faster/cheaper" than 4.1
Why are they doing this?
Re: OpenAI o3 and o4-mini
#174So at this point OpenAI has 6 reasoning models, 4 flagship chat models, and 7 cost optimized models. So that's 17 models in total and that's not even counting their older models and more specialized ones. Compare this with Anthropic that has 7 models in total and 2 main ones that they promote. This is just getting to be a bit much, seems like they are trying to cover for the fact that they haven't actually done much.…
OpenAI isn't selling GPT-4 or o1 or o4-mini or turbo or whatever else to the general public. These announcements may as well be them releasing GPT v12.582.599385. No one outside of a small group of nerds cares. The end consumer is going to chatgpt.com and typing things in the box.
They have an enterprise business too. I think it's relevant for that.
Re: OpenAI o3 and o4-mini
#175To plan a visit to a dark sky place, I used duck.ai (Duckduckgo's experimental AI chat feature) to ask five different AIs on what date the new moon will happen in August 2025. GPT-4o mini: The new moon in August 2025 will occur on August 12. Llama 3.3 70B: The new moon in August 2025 is expected to occur on August 16, 2025. Claude 3 Haiku: The new moon in August 2025 will occur on August 23, 2025. o3-mini: Based on a…
I would never ask any of these questions of an LLM (and I use and rely on LLMs multiple times a day), this is a job for a computer. I would also never ask a coworker for this precise number either.
But it's a good reminder when so many enterprises like to claim that hallucinations have "mostly been solved".
Re: OpenAI o3 and o4-mini
#176Re: OpenAI o3 and o4-mini
#177Not sure what the goal is with Codex CLI. It's not running a local LLM right, just a CLI to make API calls from the terminal?
This might be their answer to claude code more than anything else.
Yes, that's exactly what I thought as well. An attempt to get more share in the developer tooling space for the long term.
Re: OpenAI o3 and o4-mini
#178The most annoying part of all this is they replaced o1 with o3 without any notices or warnings. This is why I hate proprietary models.
Meanwhile we have people elsewhere in the thread complaining about too many models.
Assuming OpenAI are correct that o3 is strictly an improvement over o1 then I don't see why they'd keep o1 around. When they upgrade gpt-o4 they don't let you use the old version, after all.
Re: OpenAI o3 and o4-mini
#179`ETOOMANYMODELS`
Is there a reputable, non-blogspam site that offers a 'cheat sheet' of sorts for what models to use, in particular for development? Not just openAI, but across the main cloud offerings and feasible local models?
I know there are the benchmarks, and directories like huggingface, and you can get a 'feel' for things by scanning threads here or other forums.
I'm thinking more of something that provides use-case tailored "top 3" choices by collecting and summarizing different data points. For example:
* agent & tool based dev (cloud) - [top 3 models] * agent & tool based dev (local) - m1, m2, m,3 * code review / high level analysis - ... * general tech questions - ... * technical writing (ADRs, needs assessments, etc) - ...
Part of the problem is how quickly the landscape changes everyday, and also just relying on benchmarks isn't enough: it ignores cost, and more importantly ignores actual user experience (which I realize is incredibly hard to aggregate & quantify).
Re: OpenAI o3 and o4-mini
#180Earlier quoted context omitted.
To use that criticism for this release ain't really fair, as these will replace the old models (o3 will replace o1, o4-mini will replace o3-mini). On a more general level - sure, but they aren't planning to use this release to add a larger number of models, it's just that deprecating/killing the old models can't be done overnight.
As someone who doesn't use anything OpenAI (for all the reasons), I have to agree with the GP. It's all baffling. Why is there an o3-mini and an o4-mini? Why on earth are there so many models? Once you get to this point you're putting the paradox of choice on the user - I used to use a particular brand toothpaste for years until it got to the point where I'd be in the supermarket looking at a wall of toothpaste all b…
(I work at OpenAI.)
In ChatGPT, o4-mini is replacing o3-mini. It's a straight 1-to-1 upgrade.
In the API, o4-mini is a new model option. We continue to support o3-mini so that anyone who built a product atop o3-mini can continue to get stable behavior. By offering both, developers can test both and switch when they like. The alternative would be to risk breaking production apps whenever we launch a new model and shut off developers without warning.
I don't think it's too different from what other companies do. Like, consider Apple. They support dozens of iPhone models with their software updates and developer docs. And if you're an app developer, you probably want to be aware of all those models and docs as you develop your app (not an exact analogy). But if you're a regular person and you go into an Apple store, you only see a few options, which you can personalize to what you want.
If you have concrete suggestions on how we can improve our naming or our product offering, happy to consider them. Genuinely trying to do the best we can, and we'll clean some things up later this year.
Fun fact: before GPT-4, we had a unified naming scheme for models that went {modality}-{size}-{version}, which resulted in names like text-davinci-002. We considered launching GPT-4 as something like text-earhart-001, but since everyone was calling it GPT-4 anyway, we abandoned that system to use the name GPT-4 that everyone had already latched onto. Kind of funny how our unified naming scheme originally made room for 999 versions, but we didn't make it past 3.