Looks amazing, but the limitations section seems concerning given the nature of the tool:<p>“Limitations
Deep research unlocks significant new capabilities, but it’s still early and has limitations. It can sometimes hallucinate facts in responses or make incorrect inferences, though at a notably lower rate than existing ChatGPT models, according to internal evaluations. It may struggle with distinguishing authoritative information from rumors, and currently shows weakness in confidence calibration, often failing to convey uncertainty accurately. At launch, there may be minor formatting errors in reports and citations, and tasks may take longer to kick off. We expect all these issues to quickly improve with more usage and time.”<p>Given the point of the agent is to replace hours of manual research and factual distillation/summarizing, the risk of hallucinations and confident falsehoods in the data sort of undermines the whole shebang. If you want rock solid data but can’t afford to spend the time getting it, seems like a terrible trade off to save time but increase risk of bad data.
While this seems to be a legitimately strong technical achievement pushing the SotA, I can't help but feel that it's cheapened by the use of the word "Deep" and the way in which their "Deep research" button seems to be a UI copy of Deepseek's "DeepThink" button.<p>Am I right that at least from a marketing standpoint, it appears that OpenAI are now on the defensive?