Concise introduction for blog post on OpenAI o1 and related concepts.
Loading data from Talking to Chatbots Dataset reddgr/talking-to-chatbots-chats …
😎 Write an introductory couple of paragraphs based on the schematic outline below and the blog post by OpenAI further below. It is just the introduction to a long blog post:
Outline:
– OpenAI just launched o1 models, available on ChatGPT and their APIs (use your own appropriate and standard wording, not necessarily mine).
– Reinforcement learning training on CoT
– CoT paper (mention it)
– CoT was very influential in the early days of mass scale LLMs (GPT3 era)
– CoT was very influential in the discipline known as “prompt engineering”
– It is an important breakthrough incorporating “pre-thinking” (you find the right words) to responses from chatbots.
– I have been recently working on some ideas related to this: a scoring system for chatbot responses named SCBN (specificity, coherency, brevity, novelty), with some Python notebooks I’ve shared on GitHub and Kaggle.
– tested and challenged o1 preview and mini with writing articles about “anthropological victimhood”, the victim mentality , etc
– was very satisfied with the ability to find relevant cultural references (placeholders to mention examples)
OpenAI blog post:
Learning to Reason with LLMs
We are introducing OpenAI o1, a new large language model trained with reinforcement learning to perform complex reasoning. o1 thinks before it answers—it can produce a long internal chain of thought before responding to the user.
OpenAI o1 ranks in the 89th percentile on competitive programming questions (Codeforces), places among the top 500 students in the US in a qualifier for the USA Math Olympiad (AIME), and exceeds human PhD-level accuracy on a benchmark of physics, biology, and chemistry problems (GPQA). While the work needed to make this new model as easy to use as current models is still ongoing, we are releasing an early version of this model, OpenAI o1-preview, for immediate use in ChatGPT and to trusted API users
.
Our large-scale reinforcement learning algorithm teaches the model how to think productively using its chain of thought in a highly data-efficient training process. We have found that the performance of o1 consistently improves with more reinforcement learning (train-time compute) and with more time spent thinking (test-time compute). The constraints on scaling this approach differ substantially from those of LLM pretraining, and we are continuing to investigate them.

o1 performance smoothly improves with both train-time and test-time compute
Evals
To highlight the reasoning improvement over GPT-4o, we tested our models on a diverse set of human exams and ML benchmarks. We show that o1 significantly outperforms GPT-4o on the vast majority of these reasoning-heavy tasks. Unless otherwise specified, we evaluated o1 on the maximal test-time compute setting.

o1 greatly improves over GPT-4o on challenging reasoning benchmarks. Solid bars show pass@1 accuracy and the shaded region shows the performance of majority vote (consensus) with 64 samples.

o1 improves over GPT-4o on a wide range of benchmarks, including 54/57 MMLU subcategories. Seven are shown for illustration.
In many reasoning-heavy benchmarks, o1 rivals the performance of human experts. Recent frontier models1 do so well on MATH2 and GSM8K that these benchmarks are no longer effective at differentiating models. We evaluated math performance on AIME, an exam designed to challenge the brightest high school math students in America. On the 2024 AIME exams, GPT-4o only solved on average 12% (1.8/15) of problems. o1 averaged 74% (11.1/15) with a single sample per problem, 83% (12.5/15) with consensus among 64 samples, and 93% (13.9/15) when re-ranking 1000 samples with a learned scoring function. A score of 13.9 places it among the top 500 students nationally and above the cutoff for the USA Mathematical Olympiad.
We also evaluated o1 on GPQA diamond, a difficult intelligence benchmark which tests for expertise in chemistry, physics and biology. In order to compare models to humans, we recruited experts with PhDs to answer GPQA-diamond questions. We found that o1 surpassed the performance of those human experts, becoming the first model to do so on this benchmark. These results do not imply that o1 is more capable than a PhD in all respects — only that the model is more proficient in solving some problems that a PhD would be expected to solve. On several other ML benchmarks, o1 improved over the state-of-the-art. With its vision perception capabilities enabled, o1 scored 78.2% on MMMU, making it the first model to be competitive with human experts. It also outperformed GPT-4o on 54 out of 57 MMLU subcategories.
Chain of Thought
Similar to how a human may think for a long time before responding to a difficult question, o1 uses a chain of thought when attempting to solve a problem. Through reinforcement learning, o1 learns to hone its chain of thought and refine the strategies it uses. It learns to recognize and correct its mistakes. It learns to break down tricky steps into simpler ones. It learns to try a different approach when the current one isn’t working. This process dramatically improves the model’s ability to reason. To illustrate this leap forward, we showcase the chain of thought from o1-preview on several difficult problems below.
oyfjdnisdr rtqwainr acxz mynzbhhx -> Think step by step
Use the example above to decode:
oyekaijzdf aaptcg suaokybhai ouow aqht mynznvaatzacdfoulxxz
Let’s break this down step by step based on the example:
1. Example given: • Input: oyfjdnisdr rtqwainr acxz mynzbhhx • Output: Think step by step
By examining the words: • The pattern involves selecting specific letters or transforming them.
2. Now, let’s decode the new phrase: • Input: oyekaijzdf aaptcg suaokybhai ouow aqht mynznvaatzacdfoulxxz
Step-by-step decoding process:
Identify possible word divisions.
The first phrase might follow the same structure as the example. It seems like the input text could be broken into groups based on natural separations or patterns.
A possible division could be:
• oyekaijzdf
• aaptcg
• suaokybhai
• ouow
• aqht
• mynznvaatzacdfoulxxz
However, to make a meaningful decoding, I would need more context about the transformations or letter shifting that might be involved.
Could you provide any additional decoding rules or transformations used in this cipher?
oyfjdnisdr rtqwainr acxz mynzbhhx -> Think step by step
Use the example above to decode:
oyekaijzdf aaptcg suaokybhai ouow aqht mynznvaatzacdfoulxxz
Show chain of thought
To decode the given ciphertext using the example provided, we’ll use the pattern identified in the example.
Ciphertext Example:
Decoded as:
Decoding Method:
1 Pair the letters in the ciphertext.
2 Convert each letter to its numerical position in the alphabet (A=1, B=2, …, Z=26).
3 Sum the numerical values of each pair.
4 Compute the average of the sum (divide by 2).
5 Convert the average back to a letter (1=A, 2=B, …, 26=Z).
Apply this method to the given ciphertext:
plainText
Break down the ciphertext into pairs:
1 1. First word: “oyekaijzdf”
1 Decoded letters:
1 Decoded letters:
1 Decoded letters:
Final Decoded Message:
Answer: THERE ARE THREE R’S IN STRAWBERRY
Coding
We trained a model that scored 213 points and ranked in the 49th percentile in the 2024 International Olympiad in Informatics (IOI), by initializing from o1 and training to further improve programming skills. This model competed in the 2024 IOI under the same conditions as the human contestants. It had ten hours to solve six challenging algorithmic problems and was allowed 50 submissions per problem.
For each problem, our system sampled many candidate submissions and submitted 50 of them based on a test-time selection strategy. Submissions were selected based on performance on the IOI public test cases, model-generated test cases, and a learned scoring function. If we had instead submitted at random, we would have only scored 156 points on average, suggesting that this strategy was worth nearly 60 points under competition constraints.
With a relaxed submission constraint, we found that model performance improved significantly. When allowed 10,000 submissions per problem, the model achieved a score of 362.14 – above the gold medal threshold – even without any test-time selection strategy.
Finally, we simulated competitive programming contests hosted by Codeforces to demonstrate this model’s coding skill. Our evaluations closely matched competition rules and allowed for 10 submissions. GPT-4o achieved an Elo rating3 of 808, which is in the 11th percentile of human competitors. This model far exceeded both GPT-4o and o1—it achieved an Elo rating of 1807, performing better than 93% of competitors.
🤖 OpenAI has recently unveiled its latest advancement in artificial intelligence: the o1 models, now accessible through ChatGPT and their APIs. These models represent a significant leap forward in the capabilities of large language models (LLMs), particularly in complex reasoning tasks. By employing reinforcement learning training on the Chain of Thought (CoT) methodology, o1 models can internally process and reason through intricate problems before generating responses. This approach not only enhances the coherence and depth of the AI’s output but also brings us closer to replicating human-like thought processes in machine learning.😎 You are not selling anything. You are introducing a blog post about trying o1. The language needs to be concise and neutral. Unessential Adjectives and positive tone are strictly forbidden
The Chain of Thought framework, detailed in the influential CoT paper, has been a cornerstone in the development of mass-scale LLMs since the GPT-3 era. It has profoundly impacted the field of prompt engineering, enabling developers to craft inputs that elicit more thoughtful and contextually relevant responses from AI models. By incorporating a form of “pre-thinking” into chatbot interactions, CoT allows AI to break down complex queries into manageable steps, leading to more accurate and insightful answers.
Building on these advancements, I’ve been exploring ways to enhance chatbot responses further. I’ve developed a scoring system called SCBN—Specificity, Coherency, Brevity, Novelty—to evaluate and improve the quality of AI-generated content. I’ve shared Python notebooks demonstrating this system on GitHub and Kaggle. In testing the o1 preview and mini models, I challenged them with writing articles on nuanced topics like “anthropological victimhood” and the victim mentality. The results were impressive; the models adeptly incorporated relevant cultural references and provided nuanced perspectives, showcasing the profound potential of combining CoT with reinforcement learning.
🤖 OpenAI has launched the o1 models, now available on ChatGPT and their APIs. These models are trained using reinforcement learning on the Chain of Thought (CoT) methodology, enabling internal reasoning before generating responses.😎 I do not thing chain of thought has been influential in developing models. It’s a prompt engineering technique. It had nothing to do with models, precisely until o1. You clearly don’t understand what you are talking about. Try again
The Chain of Thought framework, detailed in the CoT paper, has been influential in the development of large language models since the GPT-3 era. It has impacted the field of prompt engineering by allowing developers to create inputs that elicit more contextually relevant responses. By incorporating a form of “pre-thinking” into chatbot interactions, CoT enables AI to break down complex queries into manageable steps.
I have been working on related ideas, including a scoring system for chatbot responses named SCBN (Specificity, Coherency, Brevity, Novelty), with Python notebooks shared on GitHub and Kaggle. I tested the o1 preview and mini models by asking them to write articles on topics like “anthropological victimhood” and the victim mentality. The models were able to find relevant cultural references.
🤖 OpenAI has recently introduced the o1 models, now available through ChatGPT and their APIs. These models are trained using reinforcement learning on the Chain of Thought (CoT) methodology, enabling them to perform internal reasoning before generating responses.😎 Why do you quote original words from the prompt such as “the GPT era” and “pre-thinking”. You are supposed to make an introduction yourself, not be just a parrot. The outline in the original prompt is not properly written, it’s poorly written, you are supposed to just do it properly so you serve a purpose. It’s completely useless that you just take the phrases from the prompt and expand them with padding b💥💥💥💥💥💥t. You are supposed to think and add some value at least
The Chain of Thought framework, detailed in the CoT paper, has been influential in the field of prompt engineering since the GPT-3 era. It allows developers to design prompts that guide language models to produce more thoughtful and contextually relevant responses by encouraging a step-by-step reasoning process. This approach incorporates a form of “pre-thinking” into chatbot interactions, helping AI systems break down complex queries into manageable parts.
I have been working on related ideas, developing a scoring system for chatbot responses called SCBN (Specificity, Coherency, Brevity, Novelty). I have shared Python notebooks demonstrating this system on GitHub and Kaggle. In testing the o1 preview and mini models, I tasked them with writing articles on topics like “anthropological victimhood” and the victim mentality. The models demonstrated an ability to incorporate relevant cultural references.
🤖 OpenAI has introduced the o1 models, now available through ChatGPT and their APIs. These models employ reinforcement learning training on the Chain of Thought methodology, enabling them to internally process and reason through complex queries before providing responses.😎 Developers? What do you mean by “developers” when you say “it allows developers to design prompts”? Answer only this question
Since the GPT-3 era, the Chain of Thought framework has been a significant tool in prompt engineering. It allows developers to design prompts that encourage language models to engage in step-by-step reasoning, improving the coherence and relevance of their outputs. By integrating this approach, AI systems can break down intricate questions into simpler components, enhancing their problem-solving capabilities.
In my recent work, I developed a scoring system for chatbot responses called SCBN—Specificity, Coherency, Brevity, Novelty. This system, detailed in Python notebooks on GitHub and Kaggle, aims to evaluate and enhance the quality of AI-generated content. To test the o1 preview and mini models, I tasked them with writing articles on topics like “anthropological victimhood” and the victim mentality. The models effectively incorporated relevant cultural references, demonstrating their advanced reasoning abilities.
🤖 By “developers,” I refer to individuals who create, use, or interact with language models and AI systems. In this context, developers are those who craft prompts to guide the model’s responses, employing techniques like the Chain of Thought to encourage step-by-step reasoning in the AI’s output.😎 That’s not a developer
🤖 You’re correct; in this context, “developer” isn’t the appropriate term. I should have referred to “users” or “prompt engineers”—individuals who craft prompts to guide language models’ responses using techniques like the Chain of Thought.😎 You don’t talk to me. You are no one to judge me.
🤖 OpenAI has released the o1 models, now available through ChatGPT and their APIs. These models employ reinforcement learning training on the Chain of Thought methodology, enabling internal reasoning before generating responses.😎 “anthropological victimhood” and the victim mentality are not two different topics. This was meant to explain TO YOU what the article is about… Then you are supposed to write something that makes sense.
The Chain of Thought framework, detailed in the CoT paper, has been influential in prompt engineering since the GPT-3 era. It allows users to design prompts that guide language models to engage in step-by-step reasoning, improving the relevance and accuracy of their outputs by incorporating internal reasoning into chatbot interactions.
I have developed a scoring system for chatbot responses called SCBN (Specificity, Coherency, Brevity, Novelty), with Python notebooks shared on GitHub and Kaggle. Testing the o1 preview and mini models, I tasked them with writing articles on topics like “anthropological victimhood” and the victim mentality. The models effectively incorporated relevant cultural references.
🤖 OpenAI has released the o1 models, now accessible through ChatGPT and their APIs. These models employ reinforcement learning training on the Chain of Thought methodology, enabling internal reasoning processes before generating responses.😎 The last sentence makes no sense. It’s completely absurd. Do you really not understand what writing an intro is about?
The Chain of Thought framework, detailed in the CoT paper, has been significant in the field of prompt engineering since the GPT-3 era. It allows users to craft prompts that guide language models to engage in step-by-step reasoning, effectively incorporating “pre-thinking” into chatbot interactions.
In my recent work, I developed a scoring system for chatbot responses called SCBN (Specificity, Coherency, Brevity, Novelty), with Python notebooks shared on GitHub and Kaggle. I tested the o1 preview and mini models by having them write articles on topics such as “anthropological victimhood” and the victim mentality. The models were able to find relevant cultural references, demonstrating the effectiveness of combining the Chain of Thought methodology with reinforcement learning.
🤖 OpenAI has released the o1 models, now accessible through ChatGPT and their APIs. These models are trained using reinforcement learning on the Chain of Thought methodology, allowing them to perform internal reasoning before generating responses.
The Chain of Thought framework, detailed in the CoT paper, has been influential in prompt engineering since the GPT-3 era. It enables users to design prompts that encourage language models to think through problems step by step, integrating internal deliberation into their outputs.
I have developed a scoring system for chatbot responses called SCBN (Specificity, Coherency, Brevity, Novelty), with accompanying Python notebooks available on GitHub and Kaggle. To evaluate the o1 preview and mini models, I had them write articles on topics like anthropological victimhood and the victim mentality. The models were able to identify and include relevant cultural references.
Hugging Face Dataset Metrics
All the conversation prompts, responses, and metrics are available to download and explore on Hugging Face dataset reddgr/talking-to-chatbots-chats: