"Open"AI is such a comically ironic name at this point.

This also makes them less useful because I can’t just click stop generation when they make a logical error re: coding.

You wouldn't do that to this model. It finds its own mistakes and corrects them as it is thinking through things.

No model is perfect, the less I can see into what it’s “thinking” the less productively I can use it. So much for interpretability.

Saying "competitive advantage" so directly is surprising.

There must be some magic sauce here for guiding LLMs which boosts performance. They must think inspecting a reasonable number of chains would allow others to replicate it.

They call GPT 4 a model. But we don't know if it's really a system that builds in a ton of best practices and secret tactics: prompt expansion, guided CoT, etc. Dalle was transparent that it automated re-generating the prompts, adding missing details prior to generation. This and a lot more could all be running under the hood here.

Lame but not atypical of OpenAI. Too bad, but I'm expecting competitors to follow with this sort of implementation and better. Being able to view the "reasoning" process and especially being able to modify it and re-render the answer may be faster than editing your prompt a few times until you get the desired response, if you even manage to do that.

We're not going to give you training data... for a better user experience.