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

OpenAI o3 and o4-mini

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 527 posts

Re: OpenAI o3 and o4-mini

#351

Post by mode80 »

carlita_express wrote: post #255
anothermathbozo wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't exactly the case. The trend is a log scale. So a 10x in pretraining should yield a 10% increase in performance. That's not proving to be false per say but rather they are encountering practical limitations around 10x'ing data volume and 10x'ing available compute.

I am aware of that, like I said: > (Or at least because O(log) increases in model performance became unreasonably costly?) But, yes, I left implicit in my comment that the trend might be “fleeting” because of its impracticality. RL is only a trend so long as it is fashionable, and only fashionable (i.e., practical) so long as OpenAI is fed an exponential amount of VC money to ensure linear improvements under O(log) c…

This happens once it starts improving itself.

Re: OpenAI o3 and o4-mini

#352

Post by jiggawatts »

osigurdson wrote: post #183
sebzim4500 wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless I'm misunderstanding what you are asking the model to do, Gemini 2.5 pro just passed this easily. https://g.co/gemini/share/e2876d310914

As I mentioned, this is not a scientific test but rather just something that I have tried from time to time and has always (shockingly in my opinion) failed but today worked. It takes a minute of two of prompting, is boring to verify and I don't remember exactly which models I have used. It is purely a personal anecdote, nothing more. However, looking at the code that Gemini wrote in the link, it does the same thing…

Similarly, many of my informal tests have started passing with Gemini 2.5 that never worked before, which makes the 2025 era of AI models feel like a step change to me.

Re: OpenAI o3 and o4-mini

#353

Post by chrsw »

chpatrick wrote: post #331
chrsw wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not an AI researcher but I’m not convinced these contemporary artificial neural networks will get us to AGI, even assuming an acceleration to current scaling pace. Maybe my definition of AGI is off but I’m thinking what that means is a machine that can think, learn and behave in the world in ways very close to human. I think we need a fundamentally different paradigm for that. Not something that is just trained a…

I feel like every time AI gets better we shift the goalposts of AGI to something else.

I don't think we shift the goalposts for AGI. I'm not getting the sense that people are redefining what AGI is when a new model is released. I'm getting the sense that some people are thinking like me when a new model is released: we got a better transformer, and a more useful model trained on more or better data, but we didn't get closer to AGI. And people are saying this not because they've pushed out what AGI really means, they're saying this because the models still have the same basic use cases, the same flaws and the same limitations. They're just better at what they already do. Also, the better these models get at what they already do, the more starkly they contrast with human capabilities, for better or worse.

Re: OpenAI o3 and o4-mini

#354

Post by roskelld »

After refreshing the browser I see that the old o3-mini-high has gone now so I continued my coding task conversation with o4-mini-high. In two separate conversations it butchered things in a way that I never saw o3-mini-high do. In one case it rewrote working code without reason, breaking it, in the other it took a function I asked it to apply a code fix to and it instead refactored it with a different and unrelated function that was part of an earlier bit of chat history.

I notice too that it employs a different style of code where it often puts assignment on a different line, which looks like it's trying to maintain an ~80 character line limit, but does so in places where the entire line of code is only about 40 characters.

Re: OpenAI o3 and o4-mini

#355

Post by neonbjb »

jonahx wrote: post #319
iamronaldo wrote: post #103

Tyler cowen seems convinced https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2025/04/o3...

It can't solve this puzzle: https://i.imgur.com/AJqbqHJ.png Thought for 3m 51s Short answer → you can’t. The breathtaking thing is not the model itself, but that someone as smart as Cowen (and he's not the only one) is uttering "AGI" in the same sentence as any of these models. Now, I'm not a hater, and for many tasks they are amazing, but they are, as of now, not even close to AGI, by any reasonable definition.

I work for openai.

o4-mini gets much closer (but I'm pretty sure it fumbles at the last moment): https://chatgpt.com/share/680031fb-2bd0-8013-87ac-941fa91cea...

We're pretty bad at model naming and communicating capabilities (in our defense, it's hard!), but o4-mini is actually a _considerably_ better vision model than o3, despite the benchmarks. Similar to how o3-mini-high was a much better coding model than o1. I would recommend using o4-mini-high over o3 for any task involving vision.

Re: OpenAI o3 and o4-mini

#356

Post by caseyy »

The demo video is very impressive, and it shows what AI could be. Our current models are unreliable in research, but if they were reliable, then what's shown alone would be better than AGI.

There are 8 billion+ instances of general intelligence on the planet; there isn't a shortage. I'd rather see AI do data science and applied math at computer speeds. Those are the hard problems, a lot of the AGI problems (to human brains) are easy.

Re: OpenAI o3 and o4-mini

#357

Post by dmd »

tedsanders wrote: post #180
drcongo wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who doesn't use anything OpenAI (for all the reasons), I have to agree with the GP. It's all baffling. Why is there an o3-mini and an o4-mini? Why on earth are there so many models? Once you get to this point you're putting the paradox of choice on the user - I used to use a particular brand toothpaste for years until it got to the point where I'd be in the supermarket looking at a wall of toothpaste all b…

(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…

Any idea when v1/models will be updated? As of right now, https://api.openai.com/v1/models has "id": "o3-mini-2025-01-31" and "id": "o3-mini", but no just 'o3'.

Re: OpenAI o3 and o4-mini

#358

Post by esafak »

shmatt wrote: post #219
pants2 wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remember that Docusign has 7,000 employees. I think OpenAI is pretty lean for what they're accomplishing.

If we're making comparisons, its more like someone selling a $10,000 course on how to be a millionaire Not directly from OpenAI - but people in the industry is advertising how these advanced models can replace employees, yet they keep on going on hiring tears (including OpenAI). Lets see the first company to stand behind their models, and replace 50% of their existing headcount with agents. That to me would be a sign…

Not really. It could also mean their company's effective headcount is much greater than its nominal one.

Re: OpenAI o3 and o4-mini

#359

Post by benoau »

> Downloaded an untouched char.lgp from the current Steam build (1.0.9) to make sure the count reflects the shipping game rather than a modded archive.

How?

Re: OpenAI o3 and o4-mini

#360

Post by littlestymaar »

kadushka wrote: post #340
littlestymaar wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

press X to doubt o3-mini wasn't even the second place for non-STEM tasks, and in today's announcement they don't even publish benchmarks for those. What's impressive about Gemini 2.5 pro (and was also really impressive with R1) is how good the model is for a very broad range of tasks, not just benchmaxing on AIME.

I had a philosophical discussion with o3 model earlier today. It was much better than 2.5 pro. In fact it was pretty much what I would expect from a professional philosopher.

I'm not expecting someone paying $200 a month to access something to be objective about that particular something.

Also “what I would expect from a professional philosopher”, is that your argument, really?

Post reply on HN