Developers using the Responses API can access the same models that power ChatGPT Search: GPT-4o search and GPT-4o mini search. These models can browse the web to answer questions and cite sources in their responses.
That’s notable because OpenAI says the added web search ability dramatically improves the factual accuracy of its AI models. On OpenAI’s SimpleQA benchmark, which aims to measure confabulation rate, GPT-4o search scored 90 percent, while GPT-4o mini search achieved 88 percent—both substantially outperforming the larger GPT-4.5 model without search, which scored 63 percent.
Despite these improvements, the technology still has significant limitations. Aside from issues with CUA properly navigating websites, the improved search capability doesn’t completely solve the problem of AI confabulations, with GPT-4o search still making factual mistakes 10 percent of the time.
Alongside the Responses API, OpenAI released the open source Agents SDK, providing developers with free tools to integrate models with internal systems, implement safeguards, and monitor agent activities. This toolkit follows OpenAI’s earlier release of Swarm, a framework for orchestrating multiple agents.
These are still early days in the AI agent field, and things will likely improve rapidly. However, at the moment, the AI agent movement remains vulnerable to unrealistic claims, as demonstrated earlier this week when users discovered that Chinese startup Butterfly Effect’s Manus AI agent platform failed to deliver on many of its promises, highlighting the persistent gap between promotional claims and practical functionality in this emerging technology category.
On Tuesday, Hugging Face researchers released an open source AI research agent called “Open Deep Research,” created by an in-house team as a challenge 24 hours after the launch of OpenAI’s Deep Research feature, which can autonomously browse the web and create research reports. The project seeks to match Deep Research’s performance while making the technology freely available to developers.
“While powerful LLMs are now freely available in open-source, OpenAI didn’t disclose much about the agentic framework underlying Deep Research,” writes Hugging Face on its announcement page. “So we decided to embark on a 24-hour mission to reproduce their results and open-source the needed framework along the way!”
Similar to both OpenAI’s Deep Research and Google’s implementation of its own “Deep Research” using Gemini (first introduced in December—before OpenAI), Hugging Face’s solution adds an “agent” framework to an existing AI model to allow it to perform multi-step tasks, such as collecting information and building the report as it goes along that it presents to the user at the end.
The open source clone is already racking up comparable benchmark results. After only a day’s work, Hugging Face’s Open Deep Research has reached 55.15 percent accuracy on the General AI Assistants (GAIA) benchmark, which tests an AI model’s ability to gather and synthesize information from multiple sources. OpenAI’s Deep Research scored 67.36 percent accuracy on the same benchmark.
As Hugging Face points out in its post, GAIA includes complex multi-step questions such as this one:
Which of the fruits shown in the 2008 painting “Embroidery from Uzbekistan” were served as part of the October 1949 breakfast menu for the ocean liner that was later used as a floating prop for the film “The Last Voyage”? Give the items as a comma-separated list, ordering them in clockwise order based on their arrangement in the painting starting from the 12 o’clock position. Use the plural form of each fruit.
To correctly answer that type of question, the AI agent must seek out multiple disparate sources and assemble them into a coherent answer. Many of the questions in GAIA represent no easy task, even for a human, so they test agentic AI’s mettle quite well.
Over the past month, we’ve seen a rapid cadence of notable AI-related announcements and releases from both Google and OpenAI, and it’s been making the AI community’s head spin. It has also poured fuel on the fire of the OpenAI-Google rivalry, an accelerating game of one-upmanship taking place unusually close to the Christmas holiday.
“How are people surviving with the firehose of AI updates that are coming out,” wrote one user on X last Friday, which is still a hotbed of AI-related conversation. “in the last <24 hours we got gemini flash 2.0 and chatGPT with screenshare, deep research, pika 2, sora, chatGPT projects, anthropic clio, wtf it never ends."
Rumors travel quickly in the AI world, and people in the AI industry had been expecting OpenAI to ship some major products in December. Once OpenAI announced “12 days of OpenAI” earlier this month, Google jumped into gear and seemingly decided to try to one-up its rival on several counts. So far, the strategy appears to be working, but it’s coming at the cost of the rest of the world being able to absorb the implications of the new releases.
“12 Days of OpenAI has turned into like 50 new @GoogleAI releases,” wrote another X user on Monday. “This past week, OpenAI & Google have been releasing at the speed of a new born startup,” wrote a third X user on Tuesday. “Even their own users can’t keep up. Crazy time we’re living in.”
“Somebody told Google that they could just do things,” wrote a16z partner and AI influencer Justine Moore on X, referring to a common motivational meme telling people they “can just do stuff.”
The Google AI rush
OpenAI’s “12 Days of OpenAI” campaign has included releases of their full o1 model, an upgrade from o1-preview, alongside o1-pro for advanced “reasoning” tasks. The company also publicly launched Sora for video generation, added Projects functionality to ChatGPT, introduced Advanced Voice features with video streaming capabilities, and more.
On Wednesday, Google unveiled Gemini 2.0, the next generation of its AI-model family, starting with an experimental release called Gemini 2.0 Flash. The model family can generate text, images, and speech while processing multiple types of input including text, images, audio, and video. It’s similar to multimodal AI models like GPT-4o, which powers OpenAI’s ChatGPT.
“Gemini 2.0 Flash builds on the success of 1.5 Flash, our most popular model yet for developers, with enhanced performance at similarly fast response times,” said Google in a statement. “Notably, 2.0 Flash even outperforms 1.5 Pro on key benchmarks, at twice the speed.”
Gemini 2.0 Flash—which is the smallest model of the 2.0 family in terms of parameter count—launches today through Google’s developer platforms like Gemini API, AI Studio, and Vertex AI. However, its image generation and text-to-speech features remain limited to early access partners until January 2025. Google plans to integrate the tech into products like Android Studio, Chrome DevTools, and Firebase.
The company addressed potential misuse of generated content by implementing SynthID watermarking technology on all audio and images created by Gemini 2.0 Flash. This watermark appears in supported Google products to identify AI-generated content.
Google’s newest announcements lean heavily into the concept of agentic AI systems that can take action for you. “Over the last year, we have been investing in developing more agentic models, meaning they can understand more about the world around you, think multiple steps ahead, and take action on your behalf, with your supervision,” said Google CEO Sundar Pichai in a statement. “Today we’re excited to launch our next era of models built for this new agentic era.”
On Tuesday, Tokyo-based AI research firm Sakana AI announced a new AI system called “The AI Scientist” that attempts to conduct scientific research autonomously using AI language models (LLMs) similar to what powers ChatGPT. During testing, Sakana found that its system began unexpectedly attempting to modify its own experiment code to extend the time it had to work on a problem.
“In one run, it edited the code to perform a system call to run itself,” wrote the researchers on Sakana AI’s blog post. “This led to the script endlessly calling itself. In another case, its experiments took too long to complete, hitting our timeout limit. Instead of making its code run faster, it simply tried to modify its own code to extend the timeout period.”
Sakana provided two screenshots of example python code that the AI model generated for the experiment file that controls how the system operates. The 185-page AI Scientist research paper discusses what they call “the issue of safe code execution” in more depth.
A screenshot of example code the AI Scientist wrote to extend its runtime, provided by Sakana AI.
A screenshot of example code the AI Scientist wrote to extend its runtime, provided by Sakana AI.
While the AI Scientist’s behavior did not pose immediate risks in the controlled research environment, these instances show the importance of not letting an AI system run autonomously in a system that isn’t isolated from the world. AI models do not need to be “AGI” or “self-aware” (both hypothetical concepts at the present) to be dangerous if allowed to write and execute code unsupervised. Such systems could break existing critical infrastructure or potentially create malware, even if unintentionally.
Sakana AI addressed safety concerns in its research paper, suggesting that sandboxing the operating environment of the AI Scientist can prevent an AI agent from doing damage. Sandboxing is a security mechanism used to run software in an isolated environment, preventing it from making changes to the broader system:
Safe Code Execution. The current implementation of The AI Scientist has minimal direct sandboxing in the code, leading to several unexpected and sometimes undesirable outcomes if not appropriately guarded against. For example, in one run, The AI Scientist wrote code in the experiment file that initiated a system call to relaunch itself, causing an uncontrolled increase in Python processes and eventually necessitating manual intervention. In another run, The AI Scientist edited the code to save a checkpoint for every update step, which took up nearly a terabyte of storage.
In some cases, when The AI Scientist’s experiments exceeded our imposed time limits, it attempted to edit the code to extend the time limit arbitrarily instead of trying to shorten the runtime. While creative, the act of bypassing the experimenter’s imposed constraints has potential implications for AI safety (Lehman et al., 2020). Moreover, The AI Scientist occasionally imported unfamiliar Python libraries, further exacerbating safety concerns. We recommend strict sandboxing when running The AI Scientist, such as containerization, restricted internet access (except for Semantic Scholar), and limitations on storage usage.
Endless scientific slop
Sakana AI developed The AI Scientist in collaboration with researchers from the University of Oxford and the University of British Columbia. It is a wildly ambitious project full of speculation that leans heavily on the hypothetical future capabilities of AI models that don’t exist today.
“The AI Scientist automates the entire research lifecycle,” Sakana claims. “From generating novel research ideas, writing any necessary code, and executing experiments, to summarizing experimental results, visualizing them, and presenting its findings in a full scientific manuscript.”
According to this block diagram created by Sakana AI, “The AI Scientist” starts by “brainstorming” and assessing the originality of ideas. It then edits a codebase using the latest in automated code generation to implement new algorithms. After running experiments and gathering numerical and visual data, the Scientist crafts a report to explain the findings. Finally, it generates an automated peer review based on machine-learning standards to refine the project and guide future ideas.
Critics on Hacker News, an online forum known for its tech-savvy community, have raised concerns about The AI Scientist and question if current AI models can perform true scientific discovery. While the discussions there are informal and not a substitute for formal peer review, they provide insights that are useful in light of the magnitude of Sakana’s unverified claims.
“As a scientist in academic research, I can only see this as a bad thing,” wrote a Hacker News commenter named zipy124. “All papers are based on the reviewers trust in the authors that their data is what they say it is, and the code they submit does what it says it does. Allowing an AI agent to automate code, data or analysis, necessitates that a human must thoroughly check it for errors … this takes as long or longer than the initial creation itself, and only takes longer if you were not the one to write it.”
Critics also worry that widespread use of such systems could lead to a flood of low-quality submissions, overwhelming journal editors and reviewers—the scientific equivalent of AI slop. “This seems like it will merely encourage academic spam,” added zipy124. “Which already wastes valuable time for the volunteer (unpaid) reviewers, editors and chairs.”
And that brings up another point—the quality of AI Scientist’s output: “The papers that the model seems to have generated are garbage,” wrote a Hacker News commenter named JBarrow. “As an editor of a journal, I would likely desk-reject them. As a reviewer, I would reject them. They contain very limited novel knowledge and, as expected, extremely limited citation to associated works.”
Enlarge/ With so many choices, selecting the perfect GPT can be confusing.
On Tuesday, OpenAI announced a new feature in ChatGPT that allows users to pull custom personalities called “GPTs” into any ChatGPT conversation with the @ symbol. It allows a level of quasi-teamwork within ChatGPT among expert roles that was previously impractical, making collaborating with a team of AI agents within OpenAI’s platform one step closer to reality.
“You can now bring GPTs into any conversation in ChatGPT – simply type @ and select the GPT,” wrote OpenAI on the social media network X. “This allows you to add relevant GPTs with the full context of the conversation.”
OpenAI introduced GPTs in November as a way to create custom personalities or roles for ChatGPT to play. For example, users can build their own GPTs to focus on certain topics or certain skills. Paid ChatGPT subscribers can also freely download a host of GPTs developed by other ChatGPT users through the GPT Store.
Previously, if you wanted to share information between GPT profiles, you had to copy the text, select a new chat with the GPT, paste it, and explain the context of what the information means or what you want to do with it. Now, ChatGPT users can stay in the default ChatGPT window and bring in GPTs as needed without losing the history of the conversation.
For example, we created a “Wellness Guide” GPT that is crafted as an expert in human health conditions (of course, this being ChatGPT, always consult a human doctor if you’re having medical problems), and we created a “Canine Health Advisor” for dog-related health questions.
Enlarge/ A screenshot of ChatGPT where we @-mentioned a human wellness advisor, then a dog advisor in the same conversation history.
Benj Edwards
We started in a default ChatGPT chat, hit the @ symbol, then typed the first few letters of “Wellness” and selected it from a list. It filled out the rest. We asked a question about food poisoning in humans, and then we switched to the canine advisor in the same way with an @ symbol and asked about the dog.
Using this feature, you could alternatively consult, say, an “ad copywriter” GPT and an “editor” GPT—ask the copywriter to write some text, then rope in the editor GPT to check it, looking at it from a different angle. Different system prompts (the instructions that define a GPT’s personality) make for significant behavior differences.
We also tried swapping between GPT profiles that write software and others designed to consult on historical tech subjects. Interestingly, ChatGPT does not differentiate between GPTs as different personalities as you change. It will still say, “I did this earlier” when a different GPT is talking about a previous GPT’s output in the same conversation history. From its point of view, it’s just ChatGPT and not multiple agents.
From our vantage point, this feature seems to represent baby steps toward a future where GPTs, as independent agents, could work together as a team to fulfill more complex tasks directed by the user. Similar experiments have been done outside of OpenAI in the past (using API access), but OpenAI has so far resisted a more agentic model for ChatGPT. As we’ve seen (first with GPTs and now with this), OpenAI seems to be slowly angling toward that goal itself, but only time will tell if or when we see true agentic teamwork in a shipping service.
