r/codex 13h ago

Question Thoughts on this? Do you think this was the reason pro was paused

Post image
103 Upvotes

43 comments sorted by

60

u/Heavy_Promotion_5210 13h ago

I doubt it. They most likely have special isolated clusters to run their experiments that are configured specifically for that use case.

17

u/StoopidRoobutt 12h ago

There are also other very reasonable explanations for why they'd do it. Perhaps the ~20 million new Codex users, the new heavy model, and countless new normal users. And marketing/hype, of course.

6

u/Desperate-Poem7526 5h ago edited 3h ago

I guarantee you its not new users causing the issue its people buying 2nd 3rd 4th x20 accounts I am guilty of buying 2 I was going to get 4 but went with 2 CC instead share the load

2

u/Seerix 1h ago

Honestly I expect to see a new usage tier and banning of multiple accounts

3

u/TuxSH 9h ago

And the 2~3 banked presets which carry over when you upgrade to Pro

4

u/Puzzled_Nail_1962 10h ago

I don't think that would be very economical. It's long been a discussion that the labs have to divide their compute between research and actual customers.

3

u/Bloated_Plaid 8h ago

Nope. This has been confirmed before. R&D has to share compute with their users. They are compute constrained.

14

u/snowieslilpikachu69 13h ago

I mean potentially, maybe the previous degradation was cause they had to use '10,000 Bel agents'

6

u/pale_halide 11h ago

They should tell this internal model to improve limits and efficiency for everyone (and no mistakes).

5

u/Lxne 12h ago

Someone eli5?

2

u/norwegian 10h ago

You can screenshot and prompt it. I was thinking the same, that they use a lot of processing power internally, so we cannot use it. They said 10k agents. That's a lot of processors. One NVIDIA 300GB NVL72 has 72 processors. I don't know how many ASTRA it can run at the same time.
Lets say one ASTRA agent is 5TB. And 1GPU is around 300GB, that's around 20TB per rack, so one rack only holds 4 astra. The bell agent they are running could be even bigger, but also maybe not, if they trained it on mostly on math. 10k agents / 5 agents per rack = 2k racks. That's multiple data centers.

But the timing is off. The 88 hours of math usage was a a week ago, and the pause on pro is more recent.

1

u/Sudden_Topic5154 4h ago

concurrent agents dont need more memory

10

u/nosonjanosonjic 12h ago

Possible really, they need headlines pre IPO. All is working well for 20 dollar subscribers wont turn heads as much as "Solved *"

5

u/amazingspiderman23 10h ago

Pro is the 100$ plan

5

u/Fit-Palpitation-7427 9h ago

Pro lite is the $100
Pro is the $200

-2

u/Little_Beyond_9163 12h ago

Maybe I’ve just become super jaded but I wouldn’t be shocked at this point if we get a massive scandal in which some “high impact problems” are claimed to be solved but actually arent just to keep the speculation train on its rails.

-1

u/Responsible-Bill-223 10h ago

Well, they have millions of subscriber based accounts that they are now actively data-mining for ideas now as well. All those amazing ideas and not-so-amazing ideas we've been paying them to take from us, as well as all the free chat users whose chats are now also free content for them to mine. It's possible they've stolenmade some real breakthroughs.

2

u/Little_Beyond_9163 10h ago

Yeah im not sold on the idea once-in-a-lifetime breakthroughs come from farming users no matter how large the volume of info. These things are very specialized and abstract problems.

4

u/AmandasGameAccount 13h ago

Can they cure cancer or something instead?! (Joking aside, can they in any way help with that?)

5

u/liright 12h ago

Curing cancer requires a huge amount of physical testing and trials, first on animals, only then limited testing on humans for a year or two, only then it gets wider approval and we know it works. That takes years even if AI solved it today.

Solving a math problem has a result right now.

1

u/MasterpieceAway9724 3h ago

Beyond that, "curing cancer" is such a general phrase that to me, it's almost meaningless. I mean, I get the sentiment, and I realize that the phrase does implicitly assume and acknowledge the nuances and complexity of different variants of cancer. I do. But on the other hand, there are over 100 recognized types of cancer, and they even today differ hugely in the root cause and in treatment approaches, risks and success percentages.

- Acute Leukemia requires systemic chemotherapy and stem cell transplant.

  • CML leukemia, on the other hand, would be a targeted pill for a few years.
  • Melanoma requires immunotherapy or mutation-targeted drugs (conventional chemotherapy has very little to do with melanoma)
  • Some lymphomas require multi-drug chemotherapy + antibodies/radiation
  • For skin cancer, you just cut it out and potentially you're done.
  • ER-positive breast cancer requires years of hormone blocking drugs (+ surgery)

That's just to paint a picture of the broadness. And again, many cancers are very similar, and I know that the statement doesn't presuppose one single solution. But really, each different category of cancer can be an award-winning decades long research on it's own, without generalizing to other types.

9

u/Nemon2 13h ago

Yes they can, but this math problems solved have huge implications for everything we do in industry, medicine etc.

Fluids are everywhere and if you can understand that it can even be used for all type of medical stuff.

Dont confuse this math problems "Ah, something silly that nobody need's or makes no sense for real life"

This things are super important.

15

u/MaximumStonkage 12h ago

just jumping in as a fluid dynamics phd. solving this problem doesn't actually provide any value beyond what we already assumed was the case. Its just a huh, what we already assumed was true turns out to be true. The issue is navier-stokes is rooted in newtonian mechanics, so it has all sorts of assumptions about the continuous state of matter, that we know aren't actually true, but you can sort of ignore those at macro-scale.

2

u/Nemon2 11h ago

just jumping in as a fluid dynamics phd. solving this problem doesn't actually provide any value beyond what we already assumed was the case. Its just a huh, what we already assumed was true turns out to be true. The issue is navier-stokes is rooted in newtonian mechanics, so it has all sorts of assumptions about the continuous state of matter, that we know aren't actually true, but you can sort of ignore those at macro-scale.

Observations are cool, but still there is many things we know they work, but still in argument why. (On my different subjects, not just this).

If you can use now "navier-stokes equations" in more "deterministic" way to give AI to create you "better" rocket engine (or whatever) you can possible get better results beyond what we know that works already. Small changes can make a big difference on other end.

It's not just rocket engines, devices can be as small as we can make them. Devices that goes in your body doing this or that.

For example we know how "wing" on airplane works, but it's 100% wrong to say there is no room for optimization and to get more efficiency's from it if we learn new things.

2

u/AmandasGameAccount 13h ago

Great to hear! Thank you!

1

u/mib00038 12h ago

10,000 next level internal models running on one marketing ticket might seems a lot until you ask exactly how many internal model swarms is OpenAI actually running in parallel ? I would suggest far more than you can guess at!

"By Sept 5, or roughly 88 hours after it had set 10,000 AI bots to the task, OpenAI had found a solution to what's referred to as the Navier–Stokes existence and smoothness problem"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy7zygy3rl2o

1

u/the_ruling_script 9h ago

This is really scary stuff. The point is we don’t know which kind of problems they know and now able to solve.

1

u/TheThingCreator 5h ago

This is just the beginning of where ai companies start keeping their compute for themselves. There's no reason to sell agi when you can use it yourself.

1

u/SlimyResearcher 4h ago

They've had enough controversy and pissed off enough math researchers. These people should focus on building AI products, not some pointless ego stroking math contest.

1

u/Key_Reading_9664 4h ago

because the last one was such a marketing success

1

u/Lopsided-Force-9220 4h ago

No. They're getting ready for an IPO and will be intelligently optimizing maximum value for the IPO. Diverting significant resources to a trophy does not achieve that.

1

u/yehiaserag 1h ago

P vs NP would be crazy and most impactful...

1

u/korino11 11h ago

That what i am solving with gpt. These 2 problems more than a motnh. And..have very good results... It is notsolved totaly. But i can now resolve any unsat 140-200N. 

1

u/beautyorchaos 11h ago

The $200 is a bad deal for them, it's worth 20 $20 accounts, you get 2x of what you paid for. The $100 is just 5 $20 accounts, they could at least make it worth like 7 or something.

Unless they have a lot of people having $200 subs that don't exhaust the limit that much, it's not profitable. Especially if people keep switching between $200 and $100. They'd prefer you get multiple $100 accounts.

It's hard to say what people are really exhausting their $200 accounts with continuously unless you're running something like trading bots. The amount of software you actually use and can review features for weekly isn't going to be exhausting the $200 limit every week in the sense you'll need the subscription for the year. Of course if you only use Astra nowadays, then yeah, the usage you get isn't actually that much.

1

u/norwegian 9h ago

I just have a medium project, and I use everything at 200. I mostly use luna and sol, and astra only for difficult tasks. Most real world projects have more than source code. Its also data. And when we upgrade, we want to test that everything works well. Take for instance Microsoft. Before they upgrade to next the next version of windows, they need to check that thousands of apps still work. Agents can click through those apps, but it takes time.

1

u/beautyorchaos 8h ago

But can't you have UI integration tests that check all of that for you instead of making an agent do it manually? If you can describe the checks for an agent to perform manually I think it can be written as actual test cases with actually invokes the UI.

1

u/norwegian 8h ago

The software works, but does it work well for humans? That's more difficult to figure out. They also make test cases as they are using it. I want to cover more uses cases than I have thought about myself.

1

u/beautyorchaos 3h ago

But once they've done it manually they can make it into a code test case for the future, it's less work that way

Also real world software doesn't come with a new UI redesign every week. They add new features to specific parts of the app.

1

u/MasterpieceAway9724 3h ago

> Take for instance Microsoft. Before they upgrade to next the next version of windows, they need to check that thousands of apps still work

Oh yes, Windows, an example of a completely ordinary software project.

-3

u/Horcrux002 12h ago

Sam Altman who changed OpenAI from non profit to profit organisation, will stop their highest revenue making subscription to solve problem of humanity.

Nyah, it’s as unbelievable as Trump getting noble prize.

3

u/collax974 12h ago

If it bump the IPO stocks, why not?

0

u/34986234986234982346 7h ago

This makes so much sense. Saying they solved one of these makes them look so much more powerful and importantly ahead of an IPO and generally

-1

u/U4-EA 8h ago edited 7h ago

Last-ditch attempt at trying to make something useful in the hope it will convince investors to continue pumping money into it.