←back to thread

OpenAI o3 and o4-mini

(openai.com)
555 points maheshrijal | 1 comments | 16 Apr 25 17:01 UTC | HN request time: 0s | 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 #
shmatt ◴[16 Apr 25 17:59 UTC] No.43708462[source]▶
Im old enough to remember the mystery and hype before o*/o1/strawberry that was supposed to be essentially AGI. We had serious news outlets write about senior people at OpenAI quitting because o1 was SkyNet

Now we're up to o4, AGI is still not even in near site (depending on your definition, I know). And OpenAI is up to about 5000 employees. I'd think even before AGI a new model would be able to cover for at least 4500 of those employees being fired, is that not the case?

replies(8): >>43708694 #>>43708755 #>>43708824 #>>43709411 #>>43709774 #>>43710199 #>>43710213 #>>43710748 #
chrsw ◴[16 Apr 25 20:07 UTC] No.43709774[source]▶
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 and deployed like current models, but something that is constantly observing, constantly learning and constantly interacting with the real world like we do. AHI, not AGI. True AGI may not exist because there are always compromises of some kind.

But, we don’t need AGI/AHI to transform large parts of our civilization. And I’m not seeing this happen either.

replies(2): >>43710716 #>>43759761 #
chpatrick ◴[16 Apr 25 21:41 UTC] No.43710716[source]▶
I feel like every time AI gets better we shift the goalposts of AGI to something else.
replies(1): >>43711143 #
1. chrsw ◴[16 Apr 25 22:42 UTC] No.43711143[source]▶
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.