←back to thread

OpenAI o3 and o4-mini

(openai.com)
555 points maheshrijal | 5 comments | 16 Apr 25 17:01 UTC | HN request time: 0.991s | source
Show context
_fat_santa ◴[16 Apr 25 17:24 UTC] No.43708027[source]▶
So at this point OpenAI has 6 reasoning models, 4 flagship chat models, and 7 cost optimized models. So that's 17 models in total and that's not even counting their older models and more specialized ones. Compare this with Anthropic that has 7 models in total and 2 main ones that they promote.

This is just getting to be a bit much, seems like they are trying to cover for the fact that they haven't actually done much. All these models feel like they took the exact same base model, tweaked a few things and released it as an entirely new model rather than updating the existing ones. In fact based on some of the other comments here it sounds like these are just updates to their existing model, but they release them as new models to create more media buzz.

replies(22): >>43708044 #>>43708100 #>>43708150 #>>43708219 #>>43708340 #>>43708462 #>>43708605 #>>43708626 #>>43708645 #>>43708647 #>>43708800 #>>43708970 #>>43709059 #>>43709249 #>>43709317 #>>43709652 #>>43709926 #>>43710038 #>>43710114 #>>43710609 #>>43710652 #>>43713438 #
kristofferR ◴[16 Apr 25 17:34 UTC] No.43708150[source]▶
To use that criticism for this release ain't really fair, as these will replace the old models (o3 will replace o1, o4-mini will replace o3-mini).

On a more general level - sure, but they aren't planning to use this release to add a larger number of models, it's just that deprecating/killing the old models can't be done overnight.

replies(1): >>43708470 #
drcongo ◴[16 Apr 25 17:59 UTC] No.43708470[source]▶
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 by the same brand with no discernible difference between the products. Why is one of them called "whitening"? Do the others not do that? Why is this one called "complete" and that one called "complete ultra"? That would suggest that the "complete" one wasn't actually complete. I stopped using that brand of toothpaste as it become impossible to know which was the right product within the brand.

If I was assessing the AI landscape today, where the leading models are largely indistinguishable in day to day use, I'd look at OpenAI's wall of toothpaste and immediately discount them.

replies(4): >>43708621 #>>43708737 #>>43708778 #>>43708895 #
louthy ◴[16 Apr 25 18:30 UTC] No.43708778[source]▶
You could develop an AI model to help pick the correct AI model.

Now you’ve got 18 problems.

replies(1): >>43709651 #
1. skygazer ◴[16 Apr 25 19:55 UTC] No.43709651[source]▶
I think you're trying to re-contextualize the old Standards joke, but I actually think you're right -- if a front end model could dispatch as appropriate to the best backend model for a given prompt, and turn everything into a high level sort of mixture of models, I think that would be great, and a great simplifying step. Then they can specialize and optimize all they want, CPU goes down, responses get better and we only see one interface.
replies(2): >>43709744 #>>43710769 #
2. louthy ◴[16 Apr 25 20:03 UTC] No.43709744[source]▶
> I think you're trying to re-contextualize the old Standards joke

Regex joke [1], but the standards joke will do just fine also :)

[1] Some people, when confronted with a problem, think “I know, I’ll use regular expressions.” Now they have two problems.

3. calmoo ◴[16 Apr 25 21:47 UTC] No.43710769[source]▶
Isn't this basically the idea of agents?
replies(1): >>43746230 #
4. skygazer ◴[20 Apr 25 20:13 UTC] No.43746230[source]▶
I don't believe so. I thought agents were go-do-that-complicated-interactive-thing autonomously on my behalf. But, more similar to tool use, except, with mixture of experts, each expert assumes the continuation of "participant identity" in the conversation, in that they're fed the whole context.
replies(1): >>43747222 #
5. calmoo ◴[20 Apr 25 23:10 UTC] No.43747222{3}[source]▶
Yeah you're right, I had a misunderstanding of the term.