So what are they selling with the 200 dollar subscription? Only a model that has now caught up with their competitor who sells for 1/10 of their price?
OpenAI o3 and o4-mini
281–290 of 527 posts
Re: OpenAI o3 and o4-mini
#282So 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.…
They do this because people like to have predictability. A new model may behave quite differently on something that’s important for a use case. Also, there are a lot of cases where very small models are just fine and others where they are not. It would always make sense to have the smallest highest performing models available.
I have *no idea* why you're being downvoted on this.
If I want to take advantage of a new model, I must validate that the structured queries I've made to the older models still work on the new models.
The last time I did a validation and update. Their Responses. Had. Changed.
API users need dependability, which means they need older models to keep being usable.
Re: OpenAI o3 and o4-mini
#283Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it can write a nixos flake it's significantly smarter than the average programmer. Certainly smarter than me, one-shotting a flake is not something I'll ever be able to do — usually takes me about thirty shots and a few minutes to cool off from how mad I am at whoever designed this fucking idiotic language. That's awesome.
I was a major contributor of Flake. What in particular is so idiotic in your opinion?
I use flakes a lot and I think both flakes and the Nix language are beyond comprehension. Try searching duckduckgo or google for “what is nix flakes” or “nix flake schema” and take an honest read at the results. Insanely complicated and confusing answers, multiple different seemingly-canonical sources of information. Then go look at some flakes for common projects; the almost necessary usage of things like flake-compat and flake-util, the many-valid-approaches to devshell and package definitions, the concepts of “apps” in addition to packages. All very complicated and crazy!
Thank you for your service, I use your work with great anger (check my github I really do!)
Re: OpenAI o3 and o4-mini
#284So 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.…
you'd think they could use AI to interpret the best model for your use case so you don't even have to think about it. Run the first few API calls in parallel, grade the result, and then send the rest to whatever works best
Re: OpenAI o3 and o4-mini
#285Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Do you have a 200k context window? I don't. Most humans can only keep 6 or 7 things in short term memory. Beyond those 6 or 7 you are pulling data from your latent space, or replacing of the short term slots with new content.
Re: OpenAI o3 and o4-mini
#286So 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.…
I can not believe that we feel that this is what's most worth talking about here (by visibility). At this point I truly wonder if AI is what will make HN side with the luddites.
Is there some new HN with more insightful discussions?
Re: OpenAI o3 and o4-mini
#287Earlier quoted context omitted.
Meanwhile even the highest ranked models can’t do simple logic tasks. GothamChess on YouTube did some tests where he played against a bunch of the best models and every single one of them failed spectacularly. They’d happily lose a queen to take a pawn. They failed to understand how pieces are even allowed to move, hallucinated the existence of new pieces, repeatedly declared checkmate when it wasn’t, etc. I tried it…
Chess is not exactly a simple logic task. It requires you to keep track of 32 things in a 2d space. I remember being extremely surprised when I could ask GPT3 to rotate a 3d model of a car in it's head and ask it about what I would see when sitting inside, or which doors would refuse to open because they're in contact with the ground. It really depends on how much you want to shift the goalposts on what constitutes "…
> Chess is not exactly a simple logic task.
Compare to what a software engineer is able to do, it is very much a simple logic task. Or the average person having a non-trivial job. Or a beehive organizing its existence, from its amino acids up to hive organization. All those things are magnitudes harder than chess.
> I remember being extremely surprised when I could ask GPT3 to rotate a 3d model of a car in it's head and ask it about what I would see when sitting inside, or which doors would refuse to open because they're in contact with the ground.
It's not reasoning its way there. Somebody asked something similar some time in the corpus and that corpus also contained the answers. That's why it can answer. After a quite small number of moves, the chess board it unique and you can't fake it. You need to think ahead. A task which computers are traditionally very good at. Even trained chess players are. That LLMs are not goes to show that they are very far from AGI.
Re: OpenAI o3 and o4-mini
#288So 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.…
If there are incremental gains in each release, why would they hold them back? The amount of exhaust coming off of each release is gold for the internal teams. The naming convention is bad, and the CPO just admitted as much on Lenny's podcast, but I am not sure why incremental releases is a bad thing.
Re: OpenAI o3 and o4-mini
#289Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most industries, or categories go through cycles of fragmentation and consolidation. AI is currently in a high growth expansion phase. The leads to rapid iteration and fragmentation because getting things released is the most important thing. When the models start to plateau or the demands on the industry are for profit you will see consolidation start.
having many models from the same company in some haphazard strategy doesn't equate to "industry fragmentation". it's just confusion
OpenAI's continued growth and press coverage relative to their peers leads to me to believe it isn't *just* confusion, even if it is confusing.
Re: OpenAI o3 and o4-mini
#290Doesn't achieving AGI mean the beginning of the end of humanity's current economic model? I'm not sure I understand the presumption by many that achieving AGI is just another step in some company's offering.