-8
$\begingroup$

On Sep 12, OpenAI o1 preview was released. See Introducing OpenAI o1-preview. According to the site,

In our tests, the next model update performs similarly to PhD students on challenging benchmark tasks in physics, chemistry, and biology. We also found that it excels in math and coding. In a qualifying exam for the International Mathematics Olympiad (IMO), GPT-4o correctly solved only 13% of problems, while the reasoning model scored 83%. Their coding abilities were evaluated in contests and reached the 89th percentile in Codeforces competitions.

ChatGPT Plus and Team users will be able to access o1 models in ChatGPT starting today.

This is an early release. I have not yet tried it, so I don't know how well it performs. Though here is a review. It looks like it can solve problems from Jackson. And it should be getting better quickly.

Doing your homework for you is the opposite of what we are all about. I don't know how it does explaining concepts. If it does well with concepts, what do we think about it?

Our criticism has been that it just uses words without understanding the meaning. It sounds like this no longer applies.

So, should we reconsider our policy that prohibits use of chatGPT?

Should we consider a criterion where we will consider it good enough? What might this criterion be?

$\endgroup$
2
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Since this post is just raising the issue and framing of the policy with the context of this update, and it is not saying "we should allow chatGPT", I have upvoted the post. I do think it is a worthwhile discussion to have. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 19, 2024 at 13:50
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think it's misleading to say that there's a policy in place "prohibiting the use of ChatGPT". My understanding, subject to correction, is that the usage is only prohibited when it isn't cited as such and the user falsely claims ownership on AI generated text, which is just a form of plagiarism. Naturally also, this makes it a no-go to paste an AI generated text as an answer. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 19, 2024 at 13:59

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
18
$\begingroup$

Note that our policy post on computer-generated text, while entitled "please don't use computer-generated text," justifies this request based on long-standing cultural expectations within our community:

  • Users' contributions here are expected to be substantially original work, rather than the user's writing which has been copied here from elsewhere.

  • Content which is plagiarised from some other source — that is, written by someone else but claimed by the poster as their own — is not allowed. It doesn't matter whether the source is a chatbot, or an encyclopedia, or a book. If you didn't write it, you need to cite it.

  • Users who post material that wastes other people's time, for instance by being substantially incorrect or irrelevant, are not welcome here.

These expectations are not changed by claims that a new chatbot version has impressive new skills. If an asker wanted to know how a chatbot would answer their question, they would presumably go to the chatbot's website instead of coming to our community. Improved chatbots might reduce the risk of the time-wasting hallucinatory answers we got when ChatGPT first became available for the public to use. But an answer whose content is mostly a chatbot quote is in no way a substantially original contribution.

$\endgroup$
1

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.