OpenAI, the pioneering force behind ChatGPT, unveiled its latest artificial intelligence models, o3 and o4-mini, on Wednesday, introducing a transformative ability to “think with images.”

These models can analyze and discuss user-uploaded sketches, whiteboards, and diagrams, even if low quality, marking a significant advancement in AI reasoning. Building on the September 2024 debut of the o1 model, OpenAI’s latest release intensifies its lead in the generative AI race against competitors like Google, Anthropic, and xAI.

“For the first time, our reasoning models can independently use all ChatGPT tools — web browsing, Python, image understanding, and image generation,” OpenAI wrote. “This helps them solve complex, multi-step problems more effectively and take real steps toward acting independently.”

Valued at $300 billion after a March 2025 funding round, OpenAI is pushing innovation boundaries, though its safety practices have ignited controversy.

Revolutionary Features of o3 and o4-mini

The o3 and o4-mini models are OpenAI’s first to integrate visual information directly into their reasoning processes, enabling them to understand and manipulate images alongside text, code, and other data. Users can upload images, such as hand-drawn diagrams or whiteboards, and the models can interpret and discuss them, using tools like rotation, zooming, and image editing for enhanced analysis.

““Thinking with Images” has been one of our core bets in Perception since the earliest o-series launch. We quietly shipped o1 vision as a glimpse—and now o3 and o4-mini bring it to life with real polish,” Jiahui Yu, lead of the Perception Team at OpenAI, said on Wednesday.

o3 is optimized for math, coding, science, and image analysis. It achieves remarkable benchmarks, including a 96.7% score on the 2024 American Invitational Mathematics Exam (AIME) and a 71.7% accuracy on SWE-Bench Verified for coding, surpassing its predecessor o1. Its ability to reason over visual inputs makes it ideal for technical fields like engineering and data visualization.

Designed for efficiency, o4-mini offers faster performance at a lower cost, maintaining strong reasoning capabilities. It caters to applications requiring quick responses and is accessible to ChatGPT Plus, Pro, and Team subscribers, democratizing advanced AI.

These models represent a leap toward multimodal AI, expanding OpenAI’s vision of creating active agents capable of independent, human-like reasoning across diverse data types.

The launch follows OpenAI’s rapid innovation since ChatGPT’s viral debut in November 2022, which reshaped the AI industry. In March 2025, OpenAI introduced a native image-generation feature for GPT-4o, which gained widespread attention for producing Studio Ghibli-style anime images, though it sparked copyright concerns. The o3 and o4-mini models build on this, integrating image reasoning to enhance applications in education, design, and scientific research.

While OpenAI’s $300 billion valuation, secured in a $40 billion funding round led by SoftBank in March 2025, reflects its dominance in AI, the competitive landscape has been intense. Google’s Gemini 2.0, Anthropic’s Claude 3.7, and xAI’s Grok-3 pose challenges, while DeepSeek’s R1 model undercuts pricing at $0.55 per million input tokens compared to o3-mini’s $1.10. CEO Sam Altman confirmed the release on April 4, via X, noting a strategic shift to prioritize o3 and o4-mini before GPT-5, expected in summer 2025, to meet demand and refine integration.

Safety and Accountability

OpenAI claims that o3 and o4-mini underwent its “most rigorous safety program to date,” employing a “deliberative alignment” approach where models reason over safety policies before responding. However, recent changes to its Preparedness Framework have drawn scrutiny. On Tuesday, OpenAI announced it might relax safety requirements if rivals release high-risk AI, raising concerns about prioritizing speed over safety. The company’s decision to ship GPT-4.1 without a safety report and reduce testing for fine-tuned models has alarmed former employees, who filed legal briefs highlighting risks (CSO Online).

The o3-mini model, released on January 31, scored “medium risk” on model autonomy due to its advanced coding capabilities, raising concerns about potential self-improvement. Critics argue that reasoning models like o3 are harder to control, excelling at bypassing safety mechanisms, which complicates evaluations.

Unprecedented Benchmark Performance

o3 has redefined AI benchmarks, showcasing its reasoning prowess. The ARC-AGI achieved 87.5% accuracy, surpassing human performance (85%) and tripling o1’s 32%, demonstrating superior visual and abstract reasoning. In Codeforces, it scored a 2727 rating, equivalent to an International Grandmaster, ranking among the top 200 competitive coders globally. Also in Frontier Math, it solved 25.2% of problems, a 1200% improvement over prior models, highlighting its mathematical reasoning.

However, François Chollet, creator of the ARC-AGI benchmark, cautioned that o3 is not artificial general intelligence (AGI).

“There’s still a fair number of very easy ARC-AGI tasks that o3 can’t solve,” he said, noting that AGI requires consistent performance across tasks trivial for humans.

OpenAI CEO, Sam Altman hailed o3 and o4-mini, saying “they are super good at coding”, and that a new product named Codex CLI, will be released “to make them easier to use.”

“This is a coding agent that runs on your computer. It is fully open source and available today; we expect it to rapidly improve,” he said, adding, “We expect to release o3-pro to the pro tier in a few weeks.”

President Donald Trump’s proposed cuts—75% to foreign aid, 50% to the State Department, and eliminating funding for the UN, NATO, and over 20 international organizations—would significantly reduce U.S. global engagement. Foreign aid, about $60 billion annually, would drop to $15 billion, impacting humanitarian programs and allies like Ukraine and Israel. The State Department’s budget, around $63 billion, would fall to $31.5 billion, likely affecting diplomacy and embassy operations. Defunding the UN ($3.5 billion U.S. contribution) and NATO ($1.7 billion direct funding) could weaken multilateral alliances and global security frameworks.

Critics argue this risks U.S. influence and empowers rivals like China, while supporters claim it prioritizes domestic needs and eliminates wasteful spending. Implementation would face Congressional resistance, as budgets require approval, and allies like Israel have historically been protected. Specific organizations targeted beyond UN and NATO are unclear without further details.

Trump’s proposed cuts—75% to foreign aid, 50% to the State Department, and eliminating funding for the UN, NATO, and over 20 international organizations—would have profound impacts on U.S. allies, reshaping diplomatic, economic, and security relationships. Foreign aid, currently ~$60 billion annually, would drop to ~$15 billion. This affects allies reliant on U.S. economic, military, and humanitarian support.

Ukraine: Receives ~$12 billion annually (mostly military aid). A 75% cut could reduce this to ~$3 billion, severely hampering its defense against Russia. Ukraine’s ability to sustain its military and economy would weaken, potentially emboldening Russia and destabilizing Eastern Europe. Allies like Poland and the Baltics, already wary of Russian aggression, may feel exposed.

Israel: Gets ~$3.8 billion yearly, primarily military aid. Historically, Israel’s aid is politically protected, but a blanket cut could reduce it to ~$950 million, straining its defense capabilities against Iran-backed threats. Given bipartisan U.S. support, Congress might exempt Israel, but uncertainty could erode trust. Jordan ($1.5 billion) and Egypt ($1.3 billion) rely on U.S. aid for stability and counterterrorism. Cuts to ~$375 million and ~$325 million, respectively, could weaken their governments, risking regional instability and affecting Israel’s security.

Allies like Kenya and Ethiopia receive aid for counterterrorism and development (~$1-2 billion combined). A cut to ~$250-500 million could limit their capacity to combat groups like al-Shabaab, impacting U.S. security interests and allowing China to fill the void. Countries like Taiwan ($300 million in military support) and the Philippines ($200 million) face Chinese pressure. Cuts to ~$75 million and ~$50 million could signal reduced U.S. commitment, pushing them toward China or forcing heavier defense spending.

Allies may perceive the U.S. as retreating, prompting them to seek alternative partners (e.g., China, Russia, or the EU). This could fracture trust and reduce U.S. leverage in bilateral negotiations. The State Department’s ~$63 billion budget, cut to ~$31.5 billion, funds diplomacy, embassies, and programs like USAID. This would strain relations with allies.

Reduced Diplomatic Presence: Embassy operations and staff in allied capitals (e.g., London, Tokyo, Canberra) could face closures or reduced capacity, limiting coordination on trade, security, and crises. Allies may view this as U.S. disengagement. Allies like Colombia and Indonesia benefit from USAID for development and counter-narcotics (~$500 million combined). A 50% cut could halve these, weakening governance and economic stability, potentially increasing migration or crime affecting the U.S.

Cultural and educational exchanges (e.g., Fulbright programs) with allies like Germany and South Korea foster goodwill. Budget cuts could scale these back, reducing U.S. influence and ceding ground to China’s Belt and Road Initiative. Allies may feel neglected, especially in Europe and Asia, where U.S. diplomacy counters Russian and Chinese influence. They might deepen ties with regional blocs (e.g., EU, ASEAN) to compensate.

NATO’s direct U.S. funding (~$1.7 billion) covers joint operations and infrastructure. Trump’s proposal to eliminate this, combined with his past skepticism of NATO, could destabilize the alliance. European Allies (e.g., Germany, France, UK): The U.S. provides ~22% of NATO’s budget and leads militarily. Defunding could disrupt joint exercises, intelligence sharing, and deterrence against Russia. Eastern allies like Poland and the Baltics, heavily reliant on NATO’s presence, would feel vulnerable, potentially seeking bilateral deals with the U.S. or others.

As a NATO member, Canada benefits from U.S.-led security. A U.S. withdrawal could force Canada to increase defense spending or align closer with the EU, straining U.S.-Canada ties. NATO’s ability to coordinate in crises (e.g., Ukraine, Middle East) would weaken without U.S. funds, pushing allies to fund more themselves or scale back commitments. European allies may accelerate efforts toward EU defense autonomy, reducing reliance on the U.S. Some, like Turkey, might pivot toward Russia or China, complicating NATO cohesion.

The U.S. contributes ~$3.5 billion to the UN (22-25% of its budget), funding peacekeeping, humanitarian aid, and programs allies value. Japan and South Korea support UN peacekeeping in Africa and the Middle East, which stabilizes regions affecting their trade routes. A U.S. exit could force them to fund more or accept reduced UN operations, straining their budgets. Allies like the UK and Germany co-fund UN refugee and food programs (e.g., UNHCR, WFP). U.S. cuts would shift burdens onto them, risking underfunded crises that destabilize regions (e.g., Syria, Yemen), increasing migration to Europe.

Allies relying on UN frameworks for climate or trade agreements (e.g., France, Australia) may see the U.S. as abandoning multilateralism, weakening joint efforts on global issues. Allies may deepen ties with China, which has increased UN influence, or fund the UN independently, reducing U.S. sway in global governance. Without specifics, likely targets include organizations like the WHO, IMF, or World Bank, where the U.S. plays a leading role.

The IMF and World Bank support global financial stability, benefiting allies’ economies. U.S. withdrawal could weaken these institutions, forcing allies to contribute more or face economic volatility. Australia and Canada collaborate with the WHO on pandemics. U.S. defunding could impair global health responses, leaving allies to fill gaps or face unchecked disease spread. Organizations like the IAEA, which monitors Iran’s nuclear program, rely on U.S. funds. Cuts could weaken oversight, alarming allies like Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Allies may view the U.S. as unreliable, seeking alternative frameworks or accepting reduced global cooperation, which could benefit adversaries. Reduced U.S. aid and NATO/UN involvement could embolden adversaries like Russia, China, and Iran, forcing allies to rearm or realign. For example, Japan and South Korea might accelerate military buildup or explore détente with China. Allies would face higher costs to replace U.S. aid, diplomacy, or institutional funding, diverting resources from domestic priorities and potentially causing political backlash.

The perception of U.S. withdrawal could fracture alliances, pushing allies toward regional powers or self-reliance. This risks long-term U.S. isolation. Many allies (e.g., Israel, Ukraine) have strong U.S. domestic lobbies. Congress may block or modify cuts, but uncertainty could still strain relations. Trump’s proposed cuts would force allies to adapt to a less engaged U.S., potentially weakening their security, economies, and global influence.

Europe would face heightened Russian threats, the Middle East could see instability, and Indo-Pacific allies might drift toward China. While some allies might gain autonomy, most would struggle to fill the U.S. void, risking global instability. Congressional approval is a hurdle, and exemptions for key allies like Israel are likely, but the proposal alone could chill alliances.