• jacksilver@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 days ago

    My main point is that gpt4o and other models it’s being compared to are multimodal, R1 is only a LLM from what I can find.

    Something trained on audio/pictures/videos/text is probably going to cost more than just text.

    But maybe I’m missing something.

    • will_a113@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      3 days ago

      The original gpt4 is just an LLM though, not multimodal, and the training cost for that is still estimated to be over 10x R1’s if you believe the numbers. I think where R 1 is compared to 4o is in so-called reasoning, where you can see the chain of though or internal prompt paths that the model uses to (expensively) produce an output.

      • jacksilver@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        I’m not sure how good a source it is, but Wikipedia says it was multimodal and came out about two years ago - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPT-4. That being said.

        The comparisons though are comparing the LLM benchmarks against gpt4o, so maybe a valid arguement for the LLM capabilites.

        However, I think a lot of the more recent models are pursing architectures with the ability to act on their own like Claude’s computer use - https://docs.anthropic.com/en/docs/build-with-claude/computer-use, which DeepSeek R1 is not attempting.

        Edit: and I think the real money will be in the more complex models focused on workflows automation.

      • veroxii@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 days ago

        Holy smoke balls. I wonder what else they have ready to release over the next few weeks. They might have a whole suite of things just waiting to strategically deploy