o1 however is often better for coding and for puzzle-solving, which are not the vast majority of uses of LLMs.
o1 is so much more expensive than 4o that it makes zero sense for it to be a general replacement. This will never change because o1 will always use more tokens than 4o.
You are confusing training artifacts for "personality."
> could be better for coding and for puzzle-solving, which are not the vast majority of uses of LLMs.
To see a product fail to evolve and merely stratify itself gives a solid hint as to what it's likely future is going to be.
4o versions have progressively become better at instruction following. I don't think their peak has been reached yet.
> They are merely generating what seems to "come next" logically.
So are you and I: We're predicting what we'll do next.