For OpenAI, o1 represents a step toward its broader goal of human-like artificial intelligence. More practically, it does a better job at writing code and solving multistep problems than previous models. But it’s also more expensive and slower to use than GPT-4o. OpenAI is calling this release of o1 a “preview” to emphasize how nascent it is.

The training behind o1 is fundamentally different from its predecessors, OpenAI’s research lead, Jerry Tworek, tells me, though the company is being vague about the exact details. He says o1 “has been trained using a completely new optimization algorithm and a new training dataset specifically tailored for it.”

OpenAI taught previous GPT models to mimic patterns from its training data. With o1, it trained the model to solve problems on its own using a technique known as reinforcement learning, which teaches the system through rewards and penalties. It then uses a “chain of thought” to process queries, similarly to how humans process problems by going through them step-by-step.

At the same time, o1 is not as capable as GPT-4o in a lot of areas. It doesn’t do as well on factual knowledge about the world. It also doesn’t have the ability to browse the web or process files and images. Still, the company believes it represents a brand-new class of capabilities. It was named o1 to indicate “resetting the counter back to 1.”

I think this is the most important part (emphasis mine):

As a result of this new training methodology, OpenAI says the model should be more accurate. “We have noticed that this model hallucinates less,” Tworek says. But the problem still persists. “We can’t say we solved hallucinations.”

  • oakey66@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    87
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    7 days ago

    It’s a better prediction model. There’s no reasoning because it’s not understanding anything you’re typing. We’re not closer to general ai.

    • ContrarianTrail@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      7 days ago

      It may not be capable of truly understanding anything, but it sure seems to do a better job of it than the vast majority of people I talk to online. I might spend 45 minutes carefully typing out a message explaining my view, only for the other person to completely miss every point I made. With ChatGPT, though, I can speak in broken English, and it’ll repeat back the point I was trying to make much more clearly than I could ever have done myself.

      • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        6 days ago

        I hate to say it bud, but the fact that you feel like you have more productive conversations with highly advanced autocomplete than you do with actual humans probably says more about you than it does about the current state of generative AI.

      • Eximius@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        7 days ago

        It’s a (large) language model. It’s good at language tasks. Helps to have hundreds of Gigs of written “knowledge” in ram. Differing success rates on how that knowledge is connected.

        It’s autocorrect so turbocharged, it can write math, and a full essay without constantly clicking the buttons on top of the iphone keyboard.

        You want to keep a pizza together? Ah yes my amazing concepts of sticking stuff together tells me you should add 1/2 spoons of glue (preferably something strong like gorilla glue).

        How to find enjoyment with rock? Ah, you can try making it as a pet, and having a pet rock. Having a pet brings many enjoyments such as walking it.

        • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          7 days ago

          You want to keep a pizza together? Ah yes my amazing concepts of sticking stuff together tells me you should add 1/2 spoons of glue

          That would be a good test to ask it that question and see if it comes up with a more coherent answer.

    • Drunemeton@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      7 days ago

      I wish more people would realize this! We’re years away from a truly reasoning computer.

      Right now it’s all mimicry. Mimicry that hallucinates no less…

      • Ilandar@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 days ago

        I think most people do understand this and the naysayers get too caught up on the words being used, like how you still get people frothing over the mouth over the use of the word “intelligence” years after this has entered mainstream conversation. Most people using that word don’t literally think ChatGPT is a new form of intelligent life.

      • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        7 days ago

        I don’t think anyone is actually claiming this is AGI though. Basically people are going around going “it’s not AGI you idiot”, when no one’s actually saying it is.

        You’re arguing against a point no one’s making.

        • shiftymccool@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          6 days ago

          Except that we had to come up with the term “AGI” because idiots kept running around screaming “intelligence” stole the term “AI”.

          • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            6 days ago

            No we didn’t, Artificial General Intelligence has been determined since the '90s.

            We’ve always differentiated Artificial Intelligence and Artificial General Intelligence.

            What we have now is AI, I don’t know anyone who’s claiming that it’s AGI though.

            People keep saying people are saying that this is AGI, but I’ve not seen anyone say that, not in this thread or anywhere else. What I have seen said is people saying this is a step on the road to AGI which is debatable but it isn’t the same as saying this thing here is AGI.

            Edit to add proof:

            From Wikipedia although I’m sure you can find other sources if you don’t believe me.

            The term “artificial general intelligence” was used as early as 1997, by Mark Gubrud in a discussion of the implications of fully automated military production and operations. A mathematical formalism of AGI was proposed by Marcus Hutter in 2000.

            So all of this happened long before the rise of large language models so no the term has not been co-opted.

    • Defaced@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 days ago

      OpenAI doesn’t want you to know that though, they want their work to show progress so they get more investor money. It’s pretty fucking disgusting and dangerous to call this tech any form of artificial intelligence. The homogeneous naming conventions to make this tech sound human is also dangerous and irresponsible.