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.”

  • Drunemeton@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    3 months 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
      20
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 months 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
      18
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months 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
        2
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        3 months 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
          15
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months 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.