I am a bit surprised that this does not beat GPT-4o for personal writing tasks. My expectations would be that a model that is better at one thing is better across the board. But I suppose writing is not a task that generally requires "reasoning steps", and may also be difficult to evaluate objectively.
If they did something similar for these human evaluations, rather than just use the single sample, you could see how that would be horrible for personal writing.
No, it's the opposite. This is simply a function of resources applied during training.
These were all train the same way. It's fairly clear that o1 was not.
> Maybe we will have to wait for GPT5 for that :)
There will be no GPT5, for the simple reason that scaling has reached a limit and there is no more text data to train on.