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.”

  • ulkesh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    3 months ago

    I just love how people seem to want to avoid using the word lie.

    It’s either misinformation, or alternative facts, or hallucinations.

    Granted, a lie does tend to have intent behind it, so with ChatGPT, it’s probably better to say falsehood, instead. But either way, it’s not fact, it’s not truth, and people, especially schools, should stop using it as a credible source.

    • IndustryStandard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Being wrong is not the same as lying. When LLMs start giving wrong answers on purpose to mislead people we would have a big problem.

      • irreticent@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        The thought of a maliciously deceptive AGI is terrifying to me. Many, many people will trust it until it’s too late.

    • JustTesting@lemmy.hogru.ch
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      3 months ago

      There was a recent paper that argues ‘bullshitting’ is the most apt analogy. I.e. telling something to satisfy the other person without caring about the truth content of what you say