If I'm understanding this correctly it sounds functionally similar to the report generating project Standard released a few weeks ago [1].
Introducing deep research
421–430 of 445 posts
Re: Introducing deep research
#422Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps because the time to proofread/correct is less than to do it from scratch? That would still make it a valuable tool
How? It's given you some information and now you have to seek out a source to verify that it's correct. Finding information is hard work. It's why librarian is a valuable skilled profession. What you've done by suggesting that I should "verify" or "proofread" what a glorified, water-wasting Markov chain has given me now entails me looking up that information to verify that it's correct. That's...not quite doubling th…
Verifying information is an order of magnitude easier than compiling it or synthesizing it in the first place. Prompt engineering is an order of magnitude easier still. This is obvious to most people, but apparently it needs to be said.
An entire day of generating responses with ChatGPT uses less water and energy than your morning shower. You seem terribly concerned about signaling the virtues of abstaining from technology use on behalf of purported resource misuse, yet you're sitting at a computer typing away.
You're not a serious person, and you're wasting everyone's time. Please leave the internet and go play with rocks in a cave.
Re: Introducing deep research
#423Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps because the time to proofread/correct is less than to do it from scratch? That would still make it a valuable tool
How? It's given you some information and now you have to seek out a source to verify that it's correct. Finding information is hard work. It's why librarian is a valuable skilled profession. What you've done by suggesting that I should "verify" or "proofread" what a glorified, water-wasting Markov chain has given me now entails me looking up that information to verify that it's correct. That's...not quite doubling th…
Sometimes you don't need sources to verify something is correct, its something you can directly verify. To reduce it to the easiest version of this, I ask for code to do something, it writes me code, I run my unit test, it passes, my time is saved!
For other things, it depends, but if I'm asking it to do a survey I can look at its results and see if they fit what I'm looking for, check the sources it gives me, etc. People pay analysts/paralegals/assistants to do exactly this kind of work all the time expecting that they will need to check it over. I don't see how this is any different.
I don't think the library/electricity responses are serious but to move on to the point about degrees... people also got those degrees before calculators, before computers, before air travel, before video calls, before the internet, before electricity, yet all of those things assist in creating knowledge. I think its perfectly reasonable to look at these LLMs/chat assistants in the same light: as a tool that can augment human productivity in its own way.
Re: Introducing deep research
#424Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We'd never hire someone who just makes stuff up (or at least keep them employed for long). This is contrary to my experience.
Our president begs to differ! Or pretty much any elected official for that matter.
Not everything is politics. Already your president gets too much media spotlight.
Re: Introducing deep research
#425Pro user. No access like everyone else. OpenAI is very much in an existential crisis and their poor execution is not helping their cause. Operator or “deep research” should be able to assume the role of a Pro user, run a quick test, and reliably report on whether this is working before the press release right?
That's the third time in this thread you've stated "OpenAI is in an existential crisis". It looks very suspicious.
I thought it was an appropriate response in multiple contexts. If I’m wrong, please provide a rebuttal or counterpoint.
Re: Introducing deep research
#426Pro user. No access like everyone else. OpenAI is very much in an existential crisis and their poor execution is not helping their cause. Operator or “deep research” should be able to assume the role of a Pro user, run a quick test, and reliably report on whether this is working before the press release right?
man you work for high flyer or something? i know that's not really a fair question but oai still seems to lead the pack. i know it's a hype-y area but responding to one (1) model that's comparable to o4 but cheaper with "guys it's so over for openai" is excessive.
Appreciate the thoughtful engagement. I work for a large, US-based investment firm. No relationship w/ High Flyer.
This isn’t a single model. Almost the entire leadership team around sama has left and almost certainly agrees with me on this. OpenAI’s business model is not sustainable.
Re: Introducing deep research
#427There's an open source version of this that you can use with local LLMs: https://www.reddit.com/r/LocalLLaMA/comments/1gvlzug/i_creat...
In fact, it's been three month since the release and I wouldn't even be surprised if OpenAI took inspiration from it.
Re: Introducing deep research
#428The 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.
One of the biggest issues with these things is reliability. o3 likely increases that quite a bit. The idea itself isn't novel but I don't see why this wouldn't be useful?
Re: Introducing deep research
#429Re: Introducing deep research
#430[dead]