The o1-preview model still hallucinates non-existing libraries and functions for me, and is quickly wrong about facts that aren't well-represented on the web. It's the usual string of "You're absolutely correct, and I apologize for the oversight in my previous response. [Let me make another guess.]"
While the reasoning may have been improved, this doesn't solve the problem of the model having no way to assess if what it conjures up from its weights is factual or not.
While the reasoning may have been improved, this doesn't solve the problem of the model having no way to assess if what it conjures up from its weights is factual or not.