3 ms·

replying to the wheresyouredat article: >>OpenAI launched o1 — codenamed Strawberry — on Thursday night, with all the excitement of a dentist’s appointment. Ac

replying to the wheresyouredat article: >>OpenAI launched o1 — codenamed Strawberry — on Thursday night, with all the excitement of a dentist’s appointment. Across a series of tweets, Sam Altman described o1 as OpenAi’s “most capable and aligned models yet.” Though he conceded that o1 was “still flawed, still limited, and it still seems more impressive on first use than it does after you spend more time with it,” he promised it would deliver more accurate results when performing the kinds of activities where there is a definitive right answer — like coding, math problems, or answering science questions. it seems to me like they nerfed the regular free ai model to give me imperfect replies on my benchmark consistently while the o1 model nails it consistently. before the free model would, depending on the day, give me more accurate replies to my benchmark . thus widening the divide to make the o1 model look more useful. openai can do whatever they want and thats fine but all it seems to me they did was make 01 look good by comparison by nerfing the free product.

AdieuToLogic 2y ago
> it seems to me like they nerfed the regular free ai model ... My main takeaway from the article was more about the unsustainable business model due to a massive cash burn rate. To wit: OpenAI’s models and products — and we'll get into their utility in a bit — are deeply unprofitable to operate, with the Information reporting that OpenAI is paying Microsoft an estimated $4 billion in 2024 to power ChatGPT and its underlying models, and that's with Microsoft giving it a discounted $1.30-per-GPU-an-hour cost, as opposed to the regular $3.40 to $4 that other customers pay. This means that OpenAI would likely be burning more like $6 billion a year on server costs if it wasn’t so deeply wedded to Microsoft — and that's before you get into costs like staffing ($1.5 billion a year), and, as I've discussed, training costs that are currently $3 billion for the year and will almost certainly increase. Whether or not the "free model" is better or worse than the "o1 model" is moot IMHO.

AdieuToLogic 2y ago

> it seems to me like they nerfed the regular free ai model ... My main takeaway from the article was more about the unsustainable business model due to a massive cash burn rate. To wit: OpenAI’s models and products — and we'll get into their utility in a bit — are deeply unprofitable to operate, with the Information reporting that OpenAI is paying Microsoft an estimated $4 billion in 2024 to power ChatGPT and its underlying models, and that's with Microsoft giving it a discounted $1.30-per-GPU-an-hour cost, as opposed to the regular $3.40 to $4 that other customers pay. This means that OpenAI would likely be burning more like $6 billion a year on server costs if it wasn’t so deeply wedded to Microsoft — and that's before you get into costs like staffing ($1.5 billion a year), and, as I've discussed, training costs that are currently $3 billion for the year and will almost certainly increase. Whether or not the "free model" is better or worse than the "o1 model" is moot IMHO.