I just spent an hour chatting with the new “ChatGPT o1-preview” model. OpenAI says that this model is better at reasoning and solving tough problems in math and science. You can also view the reasoning process by ChatGPT.
OpenAI claims that this model “performs similarly to PhD students on challenging benchmark tasks in physics, chemistry and biology.” I found that it was really good at listing out academic frameworks for my topics of interest, such as knowledge management.
In one discussion, I asked ChatGPT whether AI would create a scenario where people’s jobs are displaced by AI, then these people would lead sedentary lives because they can’t work, then they would fall sick, and then the remaining jobs would be about helping these sick people.
Here are some excerpts of the 44-second reasoning process that “ChatGPT o1-preview” shared with me. Honestly, I don’t know if this is its real reasoning process….or is ChatGPT giving me a fake simulation of the reasoning process?
I wonder how many humans think through their thinking process. And for those who do, how do you feel about this “thinking” machine? How many steps of reasoning do you go through in real life, and can you compete with ChatGPT?
Excerpts:
(Thought for 44 seconds)
Considering AI’s effects
I’m mapping out how AI might unintentionally cause humans to live unhealthily, indirectly fostering dependence on other humans for assistance. This perspective builds up the discussion on the broader implications of automation and AI.
Assessing AI’s impact
OK, let me see. AI’s job displacement could lead to free time but might also cause unhealthy habits, necessitating potential health interventions.
Navigating AI’s impact
Considering how AI could affect health, from sedentary habits to job shifts. Balancing AI’s ethical use and societal adaptation is key.
Balancing AI’s impact
I’m thinking through the gaps in assuming AI’s negative health effects, overlooking potential benefits, and not addressing challenges in mitigation strategies. It’s clear that a balanced perspective is crucial.
Mapping word count
I checked the total word count and found it exceeded my target. Recalculating paragraph lengths to ensure the summary fits the required word limit.
Revisiting the analysis
I’m digging into the initial reasoning and the response’s gaps, like ignoring positive leisure time uses and overemphasizing AI’s negative health impacts. Mitigation strategies are assumed effective without considering potential challenges.
Analyzing gaps
I noticed some gaps in the initial reasoning regarding AI’s health impacts, such as assuming negative effects due to extra leisure time and overgeneralizing dependence on AI.