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

OpenAI o3-pro

help.openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 209 posts

Re: OpenAI o3-pro

#21

Post by Tiberium »

bachittle wrote: post #7
manmal wrote: post #3

The benchmarks don’t look _that_ much better than o3. Does that mean Pro models are just incrementally better than base models, or are we approaching the higher end of a sigmoid function, with performance gains leveling off?

it's the same model as o3, just with thinking tokens turned up to the max.

That's simply not true, it's not just "max thinking budget o3" just like o1-pro wasn't "max thinking budget o1". The specifics are unknown, but they might be doing multiple model generations and then somehow picking the best answer each time? Of course that's a gross simplification, but some assume that they do it this way.

Re: OpenAI o3-pro

#22

Post by Gerardo1 »

Tiberium wrote: post #21
bachittle wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's the same model as o3, just with thinking tokens turned up to the max.

That's simply not true, it's not just "max thinking budget o3" just like o1-pro wasn't "max thinking budget o1". The specifics are unknown, but they might be doing multiple model generations and then somehow picking the best answer each time? Of course that's a gross simplification, but some assume that they do it this way.

> That's simply not true, it's not just "max thinking budget o3"

> The specifics are unknown, but they might...

Hold up.

> but some assume that they do it this way.

Come on now.

Re: OpenAI o3-pro

#23

Post by moomin »

browningstreet wrote: post #16
nickysielicki wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just can’t believe nobody at the company has enough courage to tell their leadership that their naming scheme is completely stupid and insane. Four is greater than three, and so four should be better than three. The point of a name is to describe something so that you don’t confuse your users, not to be cute.

At Techcrunch AI last week, the OpenAI guy started his presentation by acknowledging that OpenAI knows their naming is a problem and they're working on it, but it won't be fixed immediately.

I know they have a deep relationship with Microsoft, but perhaps they shouldn’t have used Microsoft’s product naming department.

Re: OpenAI o3-pro

#24

Post by simonw »

browningstreet wrote: post #16
nickysielicki wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just can’t believe nobody at the company has enough courage to tell their leadership that their naming scheme is completely stupid and insane. Four is greater than three, and so four should be better than three. The point of a name is to describe something so that you don’t confuse your users, not to be cute.

At Techcrunch AI last week, the OpenAI guy started his presentation by acknowledging that OpenAI knows their naming is a problem and they're working on it, but it won't be fixed immediately.

Sam Altman has said the same thing on Twitter a few times. https://x.com/sama/status/1911906570835022319

> how about we fix our model naming by this summer and everyone gets a few more months to make fun of us (which we very much deserve) until then?

Re: OpenAI o3-pro

#25

Post by cluckindan »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #11
cluckindan wrote: post #10

[flagged]

With Gemini 2.5 in AI studio you can now increase the amount of thinking tokens, and it definitely makes a difference. O3 pro is most likely O3 with an expanded thinking token budget.

It is not thinking. It is trying to deceive you. The ”reasoning” it outputs does not have a causal relationship with the end result.

Re: OpenAI o3-pro

#26

Post by MallocVoidstar »

nickysielicki wrote: post #14
mmsc wrote: post #2

I understand that things are moving fast and all, but surely the.. 8? models which are currently available is a bit .. overwhelming for users that just want to get answers to their questions of life? What's the end goal with having so many models available?

I just can’t believe nobody at the company has enough courage to tell their leadership that their naming scheme is completely stupid and insane. Four is greater than three, and so four should be better than three. The point of a name is to describe something so that you don’t confuse your users, not to be cute.

The reason their naming scheme is so bad is because their initial attempts at GPT-5 failed in training. It was supposed to be done ~1 year ago. Because they'd promised that GPT-5 would be vastly more intelligent than GPT-4, they couldn't just name any random model "GPT-5", so they suddenly had to start naming things differently. So now there's GPT-4.5, GPT-4.1, the o-series, ...

Re: OpenAI o3-pro

#27

Post by WhitneyLand »

So, we currently have o4-mini and o4-mini-high, which represent medium and high usage of “thinking” or use of reasoning tokens.

This announcement adds o3-pro, which pairs with o3 in the same way the o4 models go together.

It should be called o3-high, but to align with the $200 pro membership it’s called pro instead.

That said o3 is already an incredibly powerful model. I prefer it over the new Anthropic 4 models and Gemini 2.5. It’s raw power seems similar to those others, but it’s so good at inline tool use it usually comes out ahead overall.

Any non-trivial code generation/editing should be using an advanced reasoning model, or else you’re losing time fixing more glitches or missing out on better quality solutions.

Of course the caveat is cost, but there’s value on the frontier.

Re: OpenAI o3-pro

#28

Post by chad1n »

The guys in the other thread who said that OpenAI might have quantized o3 and that's how they reduced the price might be right. This o3-pro might be the actual o3-preview from the beginning and the o3 might be just a quantized version. I wish someone benchmarks all of these models to check for drops in quality.

Re: OpenAI o3-pro

#29

Post by ankit219 »

dyauspitr wrote: post #19
manmal wrote: post #3

The benchmarks don’t look _that_ much better than o3. Does that mean Pro models are just incrementally better than base models, or are we approaching the higher end of a sigmoid function, with performance gains leveling off?

Don’t they have a full fledged version of o4 somewhere internally at this point?

They do it seems. o1 and o3 were based on the same base model. o4 is going to be based on a newer (and perhaps smarter) base model.

Re: OpenAI o3-pro

#30

Post by MallocVoidstar »

Gerardo1 wrote: post #22
Tiberium wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's simply not true, it's not just "max thinking budget o3" just like o1-pro wasn't "max thinking budget o1". The specifics are unknown, but they might be doing multiple model generations and then somehow picking the best answer each time? Of course that's a gross simplification, but some assume that they do it this way.

> That's simply not true, it's not just "max thinking budget o3" > The specifics are unknown, but they might... Hold up. > but some assume that they do it this way. Come on now.

Good luck finding the tweet (I can't) but at least one OpenAI engineer has said that o1-pro was not just 'o1 thinking longer'.
Post reply on HN