I think this looks cool. Apparently unlike everyone else on this website?
HN is full of people who want to feel smart by complaining.
is this you?
Introducing deep research
431–440 of 445 posts
Re: Introducing deep research
#432Can 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.
Just use a VPN to pretend you're in the US and it works.
Re: Introducing deep research
#433They reduce one expensive but mostly useless gimmick after the other.
No one if ever going to trust the output this generates and then needs to spend so much time fact checking that they might as well do the entire research from scratch themselves...
Re: Introducing deep research
#434Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 tech…
You made a new account just to post this; I'm flattered! Perhaps your normal account is tied to your professional identity?
Do take care.
Re: Introducing deep research
#435Earlier quoted context omitted.
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. P…
I'm interested to hear more about how you can verify information without a source. What are you looking at when you search for the verification, exactly?
Re: Introducing deep research
#436Re: Introducing deep research
#437Can 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.
https://help.openai.com/en/articles/10500283-deep-research-f...
"Pro users (located outside the UK, Switzerland, and the European Economic Area) have access to 100 deep research tasks per month." So to me that must include Canada, right? I signed up for Pro. There it is. (For future reference, for someone else.)
Re: Introducing deep research
#438This 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.
don't you think the problem of checking for correctness then becomes more insidious then? we now can generate hundreds of reports that look very professional on the surface. the usual things that would tip you off that this person was careless aren't there -- typos, poor sentence construction, missing references. just more noise to pick through for signal
Re: Introducing deep research
#439Gemini has had this for a month or two, also named "Deep Research" https://blog.google/products/gemini/google-gemini-deep-resea... Meta question: what's with all of the naming overlap in the AI world? Triton (Nvidia, OpenAI) and Gro{k,q} (X.ai, groq, OpenAI) all come to mind
> Gemini has had this for a month or two, Would have loved to try it when they released it, but I'm apparently in the wrong country. I think it's not available outside the US (?). OpenAI and DeepSeek have no such issues. It's a bummer really, I'm happy paying for this but they don't want me to.
OpenAI Deep Research isn’t available in Norway at least, or the rest of Europe basically :(
Re: Introducing deep research
#440Earlier quoted context omitted.
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. P…
I'm interested to hear more about how you can verify information without a source. What are you looking at when you search for the verification, exactly?
Some code or maths proofs can be self supporting with things like unit tests or proof checkers as an example