Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

GPT-5.2

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 1001 posts

Re: GPT-5.2

#191

Post by commandar »

aimanbenbaha wrote: post #177
commandar wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/

Last year o3 high did 88% on ARC-AGI 1 at more than $4,000/task. This model at its X high configuration scores 90.5% at just $11,64 per task. General intelligence has ridiculously gotten less expensive. I don't know if it's because of compute and energy abundance,or attention mechanisms improving in efficiency or both but we have to acknowledge the bigger picture and relative prices.

Sure, but the reason I'm confused by the pricing is that the pricing doesn't exist in a vacuum.

Pro barely performs better than Thinking in OpenAI's published numbers, but comes at ~10x the price with an explicit disclaimer that it's slow on the order of minutes.

If the published performance numbers are accurate, it seems like it'd be incredibly difficult to justify the premium.

At least on the surface level, it looks like it exists mostly to juice benchmark claims.

Re: GPT-5.2

#192

Post by minimaxir »

SkyPuncher wrote: post #187

Given the price increase and speculation that GPT 5 is a MoE model, I'm wondering if they're simply "turning up the good stuff" without making significant changes under the hood.

I'm not sure why being a MoE model would allow OpenAI to "turn up the good stuff". You can't just increase the number of E without training it as such.

Re: GPT-5.2

#193

Post by CamperBob2 »

HDThoreaun wrote: post #110
verdverm wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're also in benchmark saturation territory. I heard it speculated that Anthropic emphasizes benchmarks less in their publications because internally they don't care about them nearly as much as making a model that works well on the day-to-day

Arc-AGI is just an iq test. I don’t see the problem with training it to be good at iq tests because that’s a skill that translates well.

Exactly. In principle, at least, the only way to overfit to Arc-AGI is to actually be that smart.

Edit: if you disagree, try actually TAKING the Arc-AGI 2 test, then post.

Re: GPT-5.2

#194

Post by dumbmrblah »

Great! It'll be SOTA for a couple of weeks until the quality degrades due to throttling.

I'll stick with plug and play API instead.

Re: GPT-5.2

#195

Post by kgwgk »

boole1854 wrote: post #151
poormathskills wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

“You are absolutely right, and I apologize for the confusion.”

Re: GPT-5.2

#196

Post by throwaway314155 »

zhyder wrote: post #113

Big knowledge cutoff jump from Sep 2024 to Aug 2025. How'd they pull that off for a small point release, which presumably hasn't done a fresh pre-training over the web? Did they figure out how to do more incremental knowledge updates somehow? If yes that'd be a huge change to these releases going forward. I'd appreciate the freshness that comes with that (without having to rely on web search as a RAG tool, which isn'…

> which presumably hasn't done a fresh pre-training over the web

What makes you think that?

> Did they figure out how to do more incremental knowledge updates somehow?

It's simple. You take the existing model and continue pretraining with newly collected data.

Re: GPT-5.2

#197

Post by impulser_ »

The thing about OpenAI is their models never fit anywhere for me. Yes they maybe smart or even the smartest models but they are alway so fucking slow. The ChatGPT web app is literally usable for me. I ask simple task and it does most extreme shit jsut to get an answer that the same as Claude or Gemini.

For example, I asked ChatGPT to take a chart and convert into a table. It went and cut up the image and zoomed in for literally 5 mins to get the a worst answer than Claude which did it in under a minute.

I see people talk about Codex like it better than Claude Code, and I go and try it and it takes a lifetime to do thing and it return maybe an on par result as Opus or Sonnet but it takes 5mins longer.

I just tried out this model and it the same exact thing. It just take ages for it to give you an answer.

I don't get how these models are useful in the real world.

What am I missing, is this just me?

I guess it truly an enterprise model.

Re: GPT-5.2

#198

Post by arscan »

tedsanders wrote: post #67
breakingcups wrote: post #43

Is it me, or did it still get at least three placements of components (RAM and PCIe slots, plus it's DisplayPort and not HDMI) in the motherboard image[0] completely wrong? Why would they use that as a promotional image? 0: https://images.ctfassets.net/kftzwdyauwt9/6lyujQxhZDnOMruN3f...

Yep, the point we wanted to make here is that GPT-5.2's vision is better, not perfect. Cherrypicking a perfect output would actually mislead readers, and that wasn't our intent.

I think you may have inadvertently misled readers in a different way. I feel misled after not catching the errors myself, assuming it was broadly correct, and then coming across this observation here. Might be worth mentioning this is better but still inaccurate. Just a bit of feedback, I appreciate you are willing to show non-cherry-picked examples and are engaging with this question here.

Edit: As mentioned by @tedsanders below, the post was edited to include clarifying language such as: “Both models make clear mistakes, but GPT‑5.2 shows better comprehension of the image.”

Re: GPT-5.2

#200

Post by minimaxir »

d--b wrote: post #186
wilg wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What did Sam Altman say? Or is this more of a vague impression thing?

[flagged]

Using ChatGPT to ironically post AI-generated comments is still posting of AI-generated comments.
Post reply on HN