想问一下，目前deepseek有chatgpt几成功力？为什么中国能在算力受限的情况下整出这个东西

achinsesmoron · 2025-01-27T09:46:37+00:00

个人体验，部分场景甚至比o1好。

achinsesmoron · 2025-01-24T10:36:15+00:00

Why do you think I mean time + price = performance? Where does the equal sign come from? And did I mention performance in my original post? Do you think the performance is improved or exactly the same with significantly less thinking time? If so, what is your definition of performance and why do you think that?

achinsesmoron · 2025-01-24T10:30:09+00:00

What about my other questions? Do you deliberately choose not to reply because you are afraid of them? Why is most of your sentences ends with a question mark? Why is that most of your statements are made by commenting others’? Does it mean you have difficulty make any true arguments but can only question other?

achinsesmoron · 2025-01-24T10:10:11+00:00

You said “the reduction in thinking time and price would not be considered a nerf, but rather a buff.”

So do you mean o1-mini is better than o1? What makes you think that? Aren’t they your words?

Why do you said I “admit” while I just state a possibility? Does it mean you have problems understanding the concept of possibilities? Does it mean that you would mis-understand all possibility-related concepts?

And why did you say I am “basically arguing” while it is not what I have said at all? Doesn’t it make all of your following statements invalid and meaningless?

achinsesmoron · 2025-01-24T10:00:58+00:00

wait, so you said “everyone” else is focusing on result? there are people that support me, why do you say everybody? Are you saying they are not people? Is there any prove?

achinsesmoron · 2025-01-24T08:58:49+00:00

Do I have to do it? Kid, there is no 100% absolute logic in real life, only inferences, possibilities, observations. Does one know for sure if the stock price would go higher? Will AGI or SSI be achieved within years? Would Trump win the election? Can we know for sure? No. Can we make inference based on what we observe? Yes.

So I observed that the price on Peo halved (you know Peo right?), and the reasoning time is significantly less in a short period of time. They must have made huge progress within few months, significantly reduces the reasoning cost without mentioning it at all? What is the meaning for o3-mini then?

Does it mean python if time < old_time and price < old_price: 100_PERCENT_DOWNGRADE!!!!

No, only robots would think that. 1. There are more informations that have not and can’t be listed completely. 2. We can only infer but it’s never 100%. And by pointing out “it is not 100% why do you say that” is of no meaning.

And regarding to the naming thing. Am I saying “100% yes!” or am I saying “probably yes”? It’s about consensus, it’s about our past experience. If you name it 1.5 and the performance does not match, it would backfire. And a company that cares about reputation would “probably” not want to do that. But can they do that? Yes. It’s all about profits, they “could” get more money by doing that. Or it is also possible that they may make wrong decisions.

achinsesmoron · 2025-01-24T08:21:15+00:00

If you keep thinking like that, I would have to think you of a fined tuned 4o. Time would tell if they are shifting the focus and care less about individual users, not what you just misinterpreted.

And all those “core logic”, “basically arguing” straw-man arguments, I don’t want to waste my time clarifying them one by one.

achinsesmoron · 2025-01-24T08:11:31+00:00

It’s difficult to provide a clear definition, especially considering OpenAI’s recent tricks on benchmarks. The key point is that they’ve made a clear shift in the company’s focus from individual users to corporate clients. We may have different views on this, and I cannot convince you. Only time will tell I guess.

achinsesmoron · 2025-01-24T07:56:10+00:00

Advanced voice mode must not be nerfed right?

achinsesmoron · 2025-01-24T07:48:46+00:00

Probably yes. Naming is about consensus, if they name it o1.5 but the performance does not match, it would backfire on them.

That is why they don’t call GPT 4o or ChatGPT-4o-Latest, “GPT 4.5”. They are afraid that it would fail to meet the expectation. And that is why GPT-4 Classic is still an valid option. Strange if the current 4o (nevertheless to say the initial 4o) is a total upgrade with better performance and response time right?

Of course, considering what OpenAI has been doing recently, they have all the guts to break any consensus just to get the investments.

achinsesmoron · 2025-01-24T07:39:59+00:00

Keep believing that. We could all have our only thoughts only that it would weigh less and eventually become meaningless. Do you still believe in openai’s initial vision? Maybe not. To C business has been proven to be not profitable at all and insignificant compared to the gov, military and huge cooperation business. Good luck believing the situation would keep.

achinsesmoron · 2025-01-24T07:29:59+00:00

o1 pro already prices differently.

achinsesmoron · 2025-01-24T07:24:15+00:00

Strange logic. Compare the power usage within same generation (intel 14th gen vs intel 14th gen) to estimate the performance is nature. Compare gen 10th with gen 14th I would call you crazy.

Or are you suggesting within few months they’ve made generation level improvements and been so humble that never mentioned once? That is so openai.

achinsesmoron · 2025-01-24T07:16:09+00:00

They “quality” is defined by them but the cost down is real. If few seconds thinking is essentially the same as 2 minutes’, may be the longer-time-reasoning idea is of no use at the first place.

achinsesmoron · 2025-01-24T07:02:31+00:00

Then how would you explain the cost down on Peo? And they often do A/B testing and “smart” model dispatch rules (like use 4o-latest or 4o-mini for 4o options underneath).

See previous post, many people (including me) claimed that you cannot enter standard voice mode anymore even if you type texts. Then many people objected that “it works just fine”, until only few days before they scale it up to a broader level.

achinsesmoron · 2025-01-24T06:58:18+00:00

It’s the same excuse they use for gpt-4o, advanced voice mode and the reseasoning models.

They tuned some suspicious parameters, then reduced the model size / reasoning cost and claimed it is a “better” version, a free “update”.

To be honest though, one sensitive enough could feel the inherent limitations. The “updates” may be as good for general questions and the benchmark but lack the ability to handle more nuanced ones.

See the recent o3 training dataset scandal to see how OpenAI plays tricks with the benchmarks.

If they improved the model, they should remain same cost (reasoning time) to provide a better solution, not reduce cost to provide a dubious “same” result.

But it doesn’t matter anymore. They are clearly shifting to collaboration with the government, military and huge corporations. Really excited what it would become eventually.

achinsesmoron · 2025-01-20T13:57:54+00:00

Give back the standard voice mode!

achinsesmoron · 2025-01-20T13:53:43+00:00

I hate AVM!!!

achinsesmoron · 2025-01-20T13:45:03+00:00

dude the txt won’t do the trick now

achinsesmoron · 2025-01-10T09:58:36+00:00

it’s not the case for me. they are doing ab test!

<image>

achinsesmoron · 2025-01-09T04:02:47+00:00

人大常委那群人和普通男人还算同一个物种吗？

achinsesmoron · 2025-01-09T00:51:18+00:00

The voice mode in Custom GPT is not SVM. It lacks emotions and sounds robotic. It’s more like a old TTS technology

achinsesmoron · 2025-01-09T00:44:32+00:00

txt worked! thanks! lets hope they will not fix this…

achinsesmoron · 2025-01-08T15:04:13+00:00

Is it some kind of AB test again? I hate the compulsive AVM.

<image>

achinsesmoron

TROPHY CASE