It's a bold strategy, Cotton. Let's see if it pays off for 'em.
>>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.
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.