I love that when "open"ai releases things last year or so, they do not actually release them. So we get the chance in the meantime to all enjoy a bunch of speculative, shilling comments here about this next great thing being miles ahead of competitors/close to AGI/the tool that will actually do X thing that others complain so far llms are failing to do.
Introducing deep research
301–310 of 445 posts
Re: Introducing deep research
#302Earlier 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…
I don't think it follows that taken an easier path would mean quality goes down.
Re: Introducing deep research
#303For “deep research” I’m also reading “getting the answers right”. Most people I talk to are at the point now where getting completely incorrect answers 10% of the time — either obviously wrong from common sense, or because the answers are self contradictory — undermines a lot of trust in any kind of interaction. Other than double checking something you already know, language models aren’t large enough to actually kno…
I mean this all falls down due to the need of verification:
"Limitations Deep research unlocks significant new capabilities, but it’s still early and has limitations. It can sometimes hallucinate facts in responses or make incorrect inferences"
How do I know which parts are false? It will take as long to verify as to research!
Re: Introducing deep research
#304For “deep research” I’m also reading “getting the answers right”. Most people I talk to are at the point now where getting completely incorrect answers 10% of the time — either obviously wrong from common sense, or because the answers are self contradictory — undermines a lot of trust in any kind of interaction. Other than double checking something you already know, language models aren’t large enough to actually kno…
It's really worrying to me, even as a self proclaimed "LLM AI" skeptic, to see what kind of stuff people pretend to get out from an LLM. Typewriter monkeys as a service almost.
Still useful for the odd task here and there, but not as useful as all the money being invested in this (except for the companies getting that money, that is).
edit: actual example of something I'd expect a real AI to be able to solve by itself, but currently LLMs fail miserably https://x.com/RadishHarmers/status/1885884032220643587
Re: Introducing deep research
#305Feels like only a matter of time before these crawlers are blocked from large swathes of the internet. I understand that they’re already prohibited from Reddit and YouTube. If that spreads, this approach might be in trouble.
> Feels like only a matter of time before these crawlers are blocked from large swathes of the internet.
How would you know its a crawler?
Re: Introducing deep research
#306The descriptions of the product sounded substantially more impressive than the actual samples tbh. Still I think there is a big market for this sort of „go away for 30 mins and figure this out“ style agent
This is 5-10 years out. What OpenAI is displaying here I've been able to do with relatively little code, a bit of scraping and far less capable models for a year. I really don't see what is novel or useful here.
Probably the accuracy.
Re: Introducing deep research
#307For “deep research” I’m also reading “getting the answers right”. Most people I talk to are at the point now where getting completely incorrect answers 10% of the time — either obviously wrong from common sense, or because the answers are self contradictory — undermines a lot of trust in any kind of interaction. Other than double checking something you already know, language models aren’t large enough to actually kno…
It's really worrying to me, even as a self proclaimed "LLM AI" skeptic, to see what kind of stuff people pretend to get out from an LLM. Typewriter monkeys as a service almost. Still useful for the odd task here and there, but not as useful as all the money being invested in this (except for the companies getting that money, that is). edit: actual example of something I'd expect a real AI to be able to solve by itsel…
> Typewriter monkeys as a service almost. // Still useful for the odd task here and there
1) Paramount task: searching in naturally structured language, as opposed to keywords. Odd tasks: oh yes, several tasks of fuzzy sophisticated text processing previously unsolved.
2) They translate NN encodings in natural language! The issue remains about the quality of /what/ they translate in natural language, but one important chunk of the problem* is in a way solved...
Now, I've been probably one of the most vocal here, shouting "That's the opposite of intelligence!" - even in the past 24 hours -, but be objective: there are also progresses ...
(* Around five years ago we were still stuck with Hinton's problem of interpreting pronouns as pointers in "the item won't fit in the case: it's too big" vs "the item won't fit in the case: it's too small" - look at it now...)
Re: Introducing deep research
#308Can anyone confirm if this is available in Canada and other countries? This site says "We are still working on bringing access to users in the United Kingdom, Switzerland, and the European Economic Area." But I'm not sure about other countries. I don't have Pro currently, only Plus.
I don't even see it in the US right now.
(Update: it’s visible for me now.)
Re: Introducing deep research
#309Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's really worrying to me, even as a self proclaimed "LLM AI" skeptic, to see what kind of stuff people pretend to get out from an LLM. Typewriter monkeys as a service almost. Still useful for the odd task here and there, but not as useful as all the money being invested in this (except for the companies getting that money, that is). edit: actual example of something I'd expect a real AI to be able to solve by itsel…
> Typewriter monkeys as a service almost. // Still useful for the odd task here and there 1) Paramount task: searching in naturally structured language, as opposed to keywords. Odd tasks: oh yes, several tasks of fuzzy sophisticated text processing previously unsolved. 2) They translate NN encodings in natural language! The issue remains about the quality of /what/ they translate in natural language, but one importan…
Of course I see progress, but I feel like the bridge of "thinks" versus "regurgitates" is still far off, if it is still in the horizon with the current approach. IMHO.
edit: furthermore, LLMs probably tackle very little "real state" in the "make machines THINK" land. But a crucial piece on the overall puzzle.
Re: Introducing deep research
#310This smells like when Google released Gemini to have a product in the space.
Eh, not really. Google failed to launch first out of internal political dysfunction and then made a crash effort to launch something to counter the first ChatGPT release. I highly doubt that the concerns of internal political commissars were holding up this particular openai release.
That's some fancy words friend.