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.”

    • hedgehog@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      I’m more concerned about them using the word “sapient.” My dog is sentient; it’s not a high bar to clear.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Is that even the goal? Do we want an AI that’s self aware because I thought that basically the whole point was to have an intelligence without a mind.

      We don’t really want sapient AI because if we do that then we have to feel bad about putting it in robots and making them do boring jobs. Don’t we basically want guildless servants, isn’t that the point?

      • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        What we want doesn’t have any impact on what our corporate overlords decide to inflict on us.

        • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          They don’t want sapient AI either, why would they?

          No one is trying for a self-aware artificial intelligence.

      • SynopsisTantilize@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        For the servants bots, yes no sentience. For my in house AI assistant robot buddy/butler/nanny/driver - also yes no sentience.