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

251–260 of 445 posts

Re: Introducing deep research

#251

Post by financypants »

azinman2 wrote: post #151
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.

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…

what about tests?

Re: Introducing deep research

#252

Post by n144q »

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…

I think that ship has sailed many years ago since Facebook allowed false information to spread freely on their site (if not earlier).

Re: Introducing deep research

#255

Post by tikhonj »

dauhak wrote: post #155
hi_hi wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ci…

Making it easier and cheaper to cut corners and make stuff up will result in more cut corners and more made up stuff. That's not good.

Same problem I have with code models, honestly. We already have way too much boilerplate and bad code; machines to generate more boilerplate and bad code aren't going to help.

Re: Introducing deep research

#256

Post by mquander »

tikhonj wrote: post #255
dauhak wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ci…

Making it easier and cheaper to cut corners and make stuff up will result in more cut corners and more made up stuff. That's not good. Same problem I have with code models, honestly. We already have way too much boilerplate and bad code; machines to generate more boilerplate and bad code aren't going to help.

The technology also makes it easier and cheaper to make good things, so the direction of the outcome isn't guaranteed.

Re: Introducing deep research

#257

Post by shawabawa3 »

willy_k wrote: post #132
xbmcuser wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was expensive as they wanted to charge more for it but deepseek has forced their hand

They’ve only released o3-mini, which is a powerful model but not the full o3 that is being claimed as too expensive to release. That being said, DeepSeek for sure forced their hand to release o3-mini to the public.

o3 mini was previewed in December. Deepseek maybe made them release it a few weeks early but it was already on its way

Re: Introducing deep research

#258

Post by albert_e »

stonogo wrote: post #201
michaelgiba wrote: post #183

Gemini has had this for a month or two, also named "Deep Research" https://blog.google/products/gemini/google-gemini-deep-resea... Meta question: what's with all of the naming overlap in the AI world? Triton (Nvidia, OpenAI) and Gro{k,q} (X.ai, groq, OpenAI) all come to mind

It's a sort of unofficial trade association where they coalesce on specific redefinitions of terms to meet their sales and PR efforts. First they came for "intelligence," then "open source," then "reason," and it will continue. Any word which the PR wants but they can't achieve gets redefined -- "grok" is a perfect example, since in the original sci-fi book it meant "total understanding." The mythological Triton rule…

Also "accuracy" as a measure of model's performance used to mean something objective in the traditional ML world.

Now with LLMs it is what human evaluators feel about the LLM output?

Re: Introducing deep research

#259

Post by simion314 »

blackeyeblitzar wrote: post #189
lompad wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Deepseek proved that there is no moat. Thus no path to profitability for openai, anthropic & co. Stealing from thieves is fine by me. Sama was the one claiming that all information could be used to train LLMs, without permisdion of the copyright holders. Now the same is being done to openai. Well, too bad.

> Stealing from thieves is fine by me. Sama was the one claiming that all information could be used to train LLMs, without permisdion of the copyright holders. OpenAI and other LLMs scraping the internet is probably covered under fair use. DeepSeek’s violation of OpenAI’s terms is pretty clearly a violation of their terms and not legal.

>DeepSeek’s violation of OpenAI’s terms is pretty clearly a violation of their terms and not legal.

Here is a new thing you learn today, ToS are not laws, you can ignore any ToS and at worst the company might close your account.

Re: Introducing deep research

#260

Post by lmm »

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…

Of course they will. Loads of people go around taking hundreds of photos with the biggest camera they can afford even though no-one else will ever willingly look at them.
Post reply on HN