GPT-5.2 • Hacker News Board

Re: GPT-5.2

#151

Post by boole1854 » Thu, Dec 11, 2025, 7:11 PM UTC

poormathskills wrote: post #23

minadotcom wrote: post #22

They used to compare to competing models from Anthropic, Google DeepMind, DeepSeek, etc. Seems that now they only compare to their own models. Does this mean that the GPT-series is performing worse than its competitors (given the "code red" at OpenAI)?

OpenAI has never compared their models to models from other labs in their blog post. Open literally any past model launch post to see that.

https://openai.com/index/hello-gpt-4o/

I see evaluations compared with Claude, Gemini, and Llama there on the GPT 4o post.

Re: GPT-5.2

#152

Post by yousif_123123 » Thu, Dec 11, 2025, 7:12 PM UTC

Why doesn't OpenAI include comparisons to other models anymore?

Re: GPT-5.2

#153

Post by famouswaffles » Thu, Dec 11, 2025, 7:12 PM UTC

ComputerGuru wrote: post #127

Wish they would include or leak more info about what this is, exactly. 5.1 was just released, yet they are claiming big improvements (on benchmarks, obviously). Did they purposely not release the best they had to keep some cards to play in case of Gemini 3 success or is this a tweak to use more time/tokens to get better output, or what?

Open AI sat on GPT-4 for 8 months and even released 3.5 months after 4 was trained. While i don't expect such big lag times anymore, generally, it's a given the public is behind whatever models they have internally at the frontier. By all indications, they did not want to release this yet, and only did so because of Gemini-3-pro.

Re: GPT-5.2

#154

Post by HackerThemAll » Thu, Dec 11, 2025, 7:13 PM UTC

No, thank you, OpenAI and ChatGPT doesn't cut it for me.

Re: GPT-5.2

#155

Post by sosodev » Thu, Dec 11, 2025, 7:13 PM UTC

lxgr wrote: post #101

sosodev wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can test it by asking it to: change the pitch of its voice, make specific sounds (like laughter), differentiate between words that are spelled the same but pronounced differently (record and record), etc.

Good idea, but an external “bolted on” LLM-based TTS would still pass that in many cases, right?

Yes, a sufficiently advanced marrying of TTS and LLM could pass a lot of these tests. That kind of blurs the line between native voice model and not though.

You would need:

* A STT (ASR) model that outputs phonetics not just words

* An LLM fine-tuned to understand that and also output the proper tokens for prosody control, non-speech vocalizations, etc

* A TTS model that understands those tokens and properly generate the matching voice

At that point I would probably argue that you've created a native voice model even if it's still less nuanced than the proper voice to voice of something like 4o. The latency would likely be quite high though. I'm pretty sure I've seen a couple of open source projects that have done this type of setup but I've not tried testing them.

Re: GPT-5.2

#156

Post by Leynos » Thu, Dec 11, 2025, 7:13 PM UTC

commandar wrote: post #124

tabletcorry wrote: post #7

Slight increase in model cost, but looks like benefits across the board to match. gpt-5.2 $1.75 $0.175 $14.00 gpt-5.1 $1.25 $0.125 $10.00

In particular, the API pricing for GPT-5.2 Pro has me wondering what on earth the possible market for that model is beyond getting to claim a couple of percent higher benchmark performance in press releases. >Input: >$21.00 / 1M tokens >Output: >$168.00 / 1M tokens That's the most "don't use this" pricing I've seen on a model. https://openai.com/api/pricing/

Someone on Reddit reported that they were charged $17 for one prompt on 5-pro. Which suggests around 125000 reasoning tokens.

Makes me feel guilty for spamming pro with any random question I have multiple times a day.

Re: GPT-5.2

#157

Post by blovescoffee » Thu, Dec 11, 2025, 7:13 PM UTC

catigula wrote: post #33

sfmike wrote: post #3

Everything is still based on 4 4o still right? is a new model training just too expensive? They can consult deepseek team maybe for cost constrained new models.

The irony is that Deepseek is still running with a distilled 4o model.

Source?

Re: GPT-5.2

#158

Post by dang » Thu, Dec 11, 2025, 7:13 PM UTC

HackerThemAll wrote: post #154

No, thank you, OpenAI and ChatGPT doesn't cut it for me.

"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: GPT-5.2

#159

Post by asgraham » Thu, Dec 11, 2025, 7:13 PM UTC

commandar wrote: post #124

tabletcorry wrote: post #7

Slight increase in model cost, but looks like benefits across the board to match. gpt-5.2 $1.75 $0.175 $14.00 gpt-5.1 $1.25 $0.125 $10.00

In particular, the API pricing for GPT-5.2 Pro has me wondering what on earth the possible market for that model is beyond getting to claim a couple of percent higher benchmark performance in press releases. >Input: >$21.00 / 1M tokens >Output: >$168.00 / 1M tokens That's the most "don't use this" pricing I've seen on a model. https://openai.com/api/pricing/

Those prices seem geared toward people who are completely price insensitive, who just want "the best" at any cost. If the margins on that premium model are as high as they should be, it's a smart business move to give them what they want.

Re: GPT-5.2

#160

Post by websiteapi » Thu, Dec 11, 2025, 7:13 PM UTC

zug_zug wrote: post #31

For me the last remaining killer feature of ChatGPT is the quality of the voice chat. Do any of the competitors have something like that?

gemini live is a thing - never tried chaptgpt, are they not similar?