Earlier quoted context omitted.
Remember that Docusign has 7,000 employees. I think OpenAI is pretty lean for what they're accomplishing.
[flagged]
The US is not a signatory to the International Criminal Court so you won't see Musk on trial there.
OpenAI o3 and o4-mini
221–230 of 527 posts
Re: OpenAI o3 and o4-mini
#222Earlier quoted context omitted.
(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…
Have any of the models been deprecated? It seems like a deprecation plan and definition of timelines would be extraordinarily helpful. I have not seen any sort of "If you're using X.122, upgrade to X.123, before 202X. If you're using X.120, upgrade to anything before April 2026, because the model will no longer be available on that date." ... Like all operating systems and hardware manufacturers have been doing for d…
Yep, we have a page of announced API deprecations here: https://platform.openai.com/docs/deprecations
It's got all deprecations, ordered by date of announcement, alongside shutdown dates and recommended replacements.
Note that we use the term deprecated to mean slated for shutdown, and shutdown to mean when it's actually shut down.
In general, we try to minimize developer pain by supporting models for as long as we reasonably can, and we'll give a long heads up before any shutdown. (GPT-4.5-preview was a bit of an odd case because it was launched as a potentially temporary preview, so we only gave a 3-month notice. But generally we aim for much longer notice.)
Re: OpenAI o3 and o4-mini
#223I can't even get ChatGPT to tell me which chatgpt to use.
Re: OpenAI o3 and o4-mini
#224Earlier quoted context omitted.
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".
I agree with you partially, BUT
when are the long list of 'enterprise' coworkers, who have glibly and overconfidently answered questions without doing math or looking them up, going to be fired?
Re: OpenAI o3 and o4-mini
#225Earlier quoted context omitted.
"haven't actually done much" being popularizing the chat llm and absolutely dwarfing the competition in paid usage
seriously. the level of arrogance combined with ignorance is awe inspiring.
True. They've blown their absolutely massive lead with power users to Anthropic and Google. So they definitely haven't done nothing.
Re: OpenAI o3 and o4-mini
#226So 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.…
Well, in fairness, Anthropic has less because 1) they started later, 2) could learn from competitors' mistakes, 3) focused on enterprise and not consumer, 4) have fewer resources.
The point is taken — and OpenAI agrees. They have said they are actively working on simplifying the offering. I just think it's a bit unfair. We have perfect hindsight today here on HackerNews and also did zero of the work to produce the product.
Re: OpenAI o3 and o4-mini
#227Very impressive! But under arguably the most important benchmark -- SWE-bench verified for real-world coding tasks -- Claude 3.7 still remains the champion.[1] Incredible how resilient Claude models have been for best-in-coding class. [1] But by only about 1%, and inclusive of Claude's "custom scaffold" augmentation (which in practice I assume almost no one uses?). The new OpenAI models might still be effectively bes…
Gemini 2.5 Pro is widely considered superior to 3.7 Sonnet now by heavy users, but they don't have an SWE-bench score. Shows that looking at one such benchmark isn't very telling. Main advantage over Sonnet being that it's better at using a large amount of context, which is enormously helpful during coding tasks. Sonnet is still an incredibly impressive model as it held the crown for 6 months, which may as well be a…
I feel that Claude 3.7 is smarter, but does way too much and has poor prompt adherence
Re: OpenAI o3 and o4-mini
#228Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
The US is not a signatory to the International Criminal Court so you won't see Musk on trial there.
I hope I don't have to link this adjacent reply of mine too many more times: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43709056 Specifically "The venue is a matter of convenience, nothing more," and if you prefer another, that would work about as well. Perhaps Merano; I hear it's a lovely little town.
Re: OpenAI o3 and o4-mini
#229Earlier quoted context omitted.
Remember that Docusign has 7,000 employees. I think OpenAI is pretty lean for what they're accomplishing.
Yes and Amazon has 1.52 million employees. How many developers could they possibly need? Or maybe it’s just nonsensical to compare the number of employees across companies - especially when they don’t do nearly the same thing. On a related note, wait until you find out how many more employees that Apple has than Google since Apple has hundreds of retail employees.
what kind of employees does Docusign employ? surely Digital Documents dont require physical onsite distribution centers and labor
Re: OpenAI o3 and o4-mini
#230I have a very basic / stupid "Turing test" which is just to write a base 62 converter in C#. I would think this exact thing would be in github somewhere (thus in the weights) but has always failed for me in the past (non-scientific / didn't try every single model). Using o4-mini-high, it actually did produce a working implementation after a bit of prompting. So yeah, today, this test passed which is cool.
I asked o3 to build and test a maximum parsimony phylogenetic tree builder in Python (my standard test for new models) and it's been thinking for 10 minutes. Still not clear if anything is happening, I have barely seen any code since I asked to test what it produced in the first answer. The thought summary is totally useless compared to Gemini's. Underwhelming so far.
The CoT summary is full of references to Jupyter notebook cells. The variable names are too abbreviated, nbr for neighbor, the code becomes fairly cryptic as a result, not nice to read. Maybe optimized too much for speed.
Also I've noticed ChatGPT seems to abort thinking when I switch away from the app. That's stupid, I don't want to look at a spinner for 5 minutes.
And the CoT summary keeps mentioning my name which is irritating.