Live data from Hacker News

Introducing deep research

openai.com

391–400 of 445 posts

Re: Introducing deep research

#391
post #10

It appears that OpenAI is in panic mode after the release of DeepSeek. Before they were confident in competing against Google on any AI model they release. Now they are scrambling against open-source after their disastrous operator demonstration and using this deep research demo as cover. Nothing that Google or Perplexity could not already do themselves. By the end of them month, this feature is going be added by a b…

I don’t think you’re comparing the right things here. This feature is more like Google’s Deep Research, which basically goes off and does a whole lot of search and compute to produce something more like a full research report. This has nothing to do with open weight models like DeepSeek (note: DeepSeek, Llama, etc are NOT open source). This feature doesn’t just require the research on the model but also enormous compute. Plus anyone using such a feature for real work is not going to be using DeepSeek or whatever, but a product with trustworthy practices and guarantees.

Re: Introducing deep research

#392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Pretty neat, but definitely watch out for hallucinations." We'd never hire someone who just makes stuff up (or at least keep them employed for long). Why are we okay with calling "AI" tools like this anything other than curious research projects? Can't we just send LLMs back to the drawing board until they have some semblance of reliability?

> Can't we just send LLMs back to the drawing board until they have some semblance of reliability? Well at this point they've certainly proven a net gain for everyone regardless of the occasional nonsense they spew.

I think as these things get more integrated into customer service workflows - especially for things like insurance claims - there's gonna start being a lot more buyer's remorse on everyone's part.

We've tried for decades to turn people into reliable robots, now many companies are running to replace people robots with (maybe less reliable?) robot-robots. What could go wrong? What are the escalation paths going to be? Who's going to be watching them?

Re: Introducing deep research

#393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Pretty neat, but definitely watch out for hallucinations." We'd never hire someone who just makes stuff up (or at least keep them employed for long). Why are we okay with calling "AI" tools like this anything other than curious research projects? Can't we just send LLMs back to the drawing board until they have some semblance of reliability?

> Can't we just send LLMs back to the drawing board until they have some semblance of reliability? Well at this point they've certainly proven a net gain for everyone regardless of the occasional nonsense they spew.

A net gain for everyone? Tell that to the artists its screwing over!

Re: Introducing deep research

#395
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…

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.

If 20% of people don't care about being correct, the rest of everyone can deal with that. If 80% of people don't care about being correct, the rest of us will not be able to deal with that.

Same thing as misinformation. A sufficient quantitative difference becomes a qualitative difference at some point.

Re: Introducing deep research

#396
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…

Think of it like a vaccine. The majority of human written consultant reports are already complete rubbish. Low accuracy, low signal-to-noise, generic platitudes in a quantity-over-quality format. LLMs are innoculating people to this kind of low information value content. People who produce LLM quality output, are now being accused of using LLMs, and can no longer pretend to be adding value. The result of this is goin…

I don't think so. Instead of SEO, I think we'll soon see 'LLMO' dominating such uses, where LLM summaries are reshaped by vendors and etailers to misrepresent facts in ways that favor them over others.

I suspect this can be done simply by poisoning a query with supplemental suggestions of sources to use in a RAG, many of which don't even have to be publicly available but are made accessible to the LLM (perhaps by submitting hidden URLs that mislead the summary along with the query).

But even after such a practice is uncovered and roundly maligned, that won't stop the infinite supply of net con men from continuing to inject their poisons into the background that drives deep research, so long as the LLM maker doesn't actively oppose this practice actively and publicly -- which none of them have been willing to do with any other LLM operational details so far.

In fact, I predict that if a LLM summary like DR's does NOT soon provide references to the sources of the facts it relies on, in no time users will disregard such summaries to be yet more uselessly unreliable pfaff from yet another net disreputable -- as we do with search engine summaries now.

Re: Introducing deep research

#397

I just gave it a whirl. Pretty neat, but definitely watch out for hallucinations. For instance, I asked it to compile a report on myself (vain, I know.) In this 500-word report (ok, I'm not that important, I guess), it made at least three errors. It stated that I had 47,000 reputation points on Stack Overflow -- quite a surprise to me, given my minimal activity on Stack Overflow over the years. I popped over to the l…

"Pretty neat, but definitely watch out for hallucinations." We'd never hire someone who just makes stuff up (or at least keep them employed for long). Why are we okay with calling "AI" tools like this anything other than curious research projects? Can't we just send LLMs back to the drawing board until they have some semblance of reliability?

You can use them for whatever you like, or not use them. Everyone has a different bar for when technology is useful. My dad doesn't think EVs are useful due to the long charge times, but there are others who find it fully acceptable.

Re: Introducing deep research

#398
The OpenAI Deep Research graph showing tool calls vs pass rate reveals something fascinating about how these models handle increasing amounts of information. The relationship follows a logistic curve that plateaus around 16% pass rate, even as we allow more tool calls.

This plateau behavior reflects something deeper about our current approach to AI. We've built transformer architectures partly inspired by simplified observations of human cognition - particularly how our brains use attention mechanisms to filter and process information. And like human attention, these models have inherent constraints: each attention layer normalizes scores to sum to 1, creating a fixed "attention budget" that must be distributed across all inputs.

A recent paper (https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.19399) explores this limitation, showing how standard attention becomes increasingly diffuse with longer contexts. Their proposed "Scalable-Softmax" helps maintain focused attention at longer ranges, but still shows diminishing returns - pushing the ceiling higher rather than eliminating it.

But here's the deeper question: As we push toward AGI and potentially superintelligent systems, should we remain bound by architectures modeled on our current understanding of human cognition? The human brain's limited attention mechanism evolved under specific constraints and for specific purposes. While it's remarkably effective for human-level intelligence, it might be fundamentally limiting for artificial systems that could theoretically process information in radically different ways.

Looking at the Deep Research results through this lens, the plateau might not just be a technical limitation to overcome, but a sign that we need to fundamentally rethink how artificial systems could process and integrate information. Instead of trying to stretch the capabilities of attention-based architectures, perhaps we need to explore entirely different paradigms of information processing that aren't constrained by biological analogues.

This isn't to dismiss the remarkable achievements of transformer architectures, but rather to suggest that the path to AGI might require breaking free from some of our biologically-inspired assumptions. What would an architecture that processes information in ways fundamentally different from human cognition look like? How might it integrate and reason about information without the constraints of normalized attention?

Would love to hear thoughts from others working on these problems, particularly around novel approaches that move beyond our current biological inspirations.

Re: Introducing deep research

#399
post #341

I just gave it a whirl. Pretty neat, but definitely watch out for hallucinations. For instance, I asked it to compile a report on myself (vain, I know.) In this 500-word report (ok, I'm not that important, I guess), it made at least three errors. It stated that I had 47,000 reputation points on Stack Overflow -- quite a surprise to me, given my minimal activity on Stack Overflow over the years. I popped over to the l…

Interesting You might find it amusing to compare it to: https://hn-wrapped.kadoa.com/timabdulla (Ref: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42857604 )

That.. seems to just take a few (three or four) random comments that received some attention and then extrapolate an entire profile based on (incorrectly) interpreting their contents?

https://hn-wrapped.kadoa.com/ComputerGuru

Re: Introducing deep research

#400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you sure it's helped you learn? In the early days of ChatGPT where it seemed like this fun new thing, I used it to "learn" C. I don't remember anything it told me, and none of the answers it gave me were anything that I couldn't find elsewhere in different forms - heck I could have flipped open Kernighan & Ritchie to the right page and got the answer. I had a conversation with an AI/Bitcoin enthusiast recently. M…

When your bitcoiner friend told you something that's not true, that's a human who hallucinated, not an LLM. Maybe we're already at AGI and just don't know it because we overestimate the capabilities of most humans.

The assertion is that they "learned" that Bitcoin came from Occupy from an AI.

If AI is teaching you, you are going to collect a thousand papercuts of lies.

Post reply on HN