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

GPT-5.4

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 868 posts

Re: GPT-5.4

#411

Post by bigfishrunning »

mycall wrote: post #356
fhcbcofkf wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

You are applying a problem which every AI company has, not unique to OpenAI. What about other nation-states making auto-AI robots which kill children, will you still choose to pick out OpenAI specifically? Maybe your concern is too late and dozens of countries already are training their own AIs to do that or worse.

This company sucks, what about all the other ones that suck hmmmmmm?

All of these VC funded AI companies are bad. Full stop. Nothing good for humanity will come of this.

Re: GPT-5.4

#412

Post by cyanydeez »

metalliqaz wrote: post #401
L-four wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gmail was in beta for 5 years, until 2009.

"Gemini, translate 'beta' from Googlespeak to English." "Ok, here is the translation:" 'we don't want to offer support'

Nah, it's "We dont want to provide a consistent model that we'll be stuck with supporting for a decade because it just takes up space; until we run everyone out of business, we can't afford to have customers tying their systems to any given model"

Really, the economics makes no sense, but that's what they're doing. You can't have a consistent model because it'll pin their hardware & software, and that costs money.

Re: GPT-5.4

#413

Post by XCSme »

kgeist wrote: post #317

>Today, we’re releasing GPT‑5.3 Instant >Today, we’re releasing GPT‑5.4 in ChatGPT (as GPT‑5.4 Thinking), >Note that there is not a model named GPT‑5.3 Thinking They held out for eight months without a confusing numbering scheme :)

What I'm most confused, is why call it both GPT-5.3 Instant and gpt-5.3-chat?

Re: GPT-5.4

#414

Post by m3kw9 »

Aurornis wrote: post #388
Philip-J-Fry wrote: post #374

I find it quite funny how this blog post has a big "Ask ChatGPT" box at the bottom. So you might think you could ask a question about the contents of the blog post, so you type the text "summarise this blog post". And it opens a new chat window with the link to the blog post followed by "summarise this blog post". Only to be told "I can't access external URLs directly, but if you can paste the relevant text or descri…

Probably intentional. They don't want open, no-registration endpoints able to trigger the AI into hitting URLs.

what? it's their own site and own llm. I could paste most sites and it would work.

Re: GPT-5.4

#415

Post by phainopepla2 »

0xbadcafebee wrote: post #376
__jl__ wrote: post #335

What a model mess! OpenAI now has three price points: GPT 5.1, GPT 5.2 and now GPT 5.4. There version numbers jump across different model lines with codex at 5.3, what they now call instant also at 5.3. Anthropic are really the only ones who managed to get this under control: Three models, priced at three different levels. New models are immediately available everywhere. Google essentially only has Preview models! Th…

> or have zero insurances that the model doesn't get discontinued within weeks Why are you using the same model after a month? Every month a better model comes out. They are all accessible via the same API. You can pay per-token. This is the first time in, like, all of technology history, that a useful paid service is so interoperable between providers that switching is as easy as changing a URL.

If you're trying to use LLMs in an enterprise context, you would understand. Switching models sometimes requires tweaking prompts. That can be a complete mess, when there are dozens or hundreds of prompts you have to test.

Re: GPT-5.4

#416

Post by sampton »

creamyhorror wrote: post #223

I've only used 5.4 for 1 prompt (edit: 3@high now) so far (reasoning: extra high, took really long), and it was to analyse my codebase and write an evaluation on a topic. But I found its writing and analysis thoughtful, precise, and surprisingly clearly written, unlike 5.3-Codex. It feels very lucid and uses human phrasing. It might be my AGENTS.md requiring clearer, simpler language, but at least 5.4's doing a good…

That's been my experience as well switching from Opus to Codex. Reasoning takes longer but answers are precise. Claude is sloppy in comparison.

Re: GPT-5.4

#417

Post by m3kw9 »

__jl__ wrote: post #335

What a model mess! OpenAI now has three price points: GPT 5.1, GPT 5.2 and now GPT 5.4. There version numbers jump across different model lines with codex at 5.3, what they now call instant also at 5.3. Anthropic are really the only ones who managed to get this under control: Three models, priced at three different levels. New models are immediately available everywhere. Google essentially only has Preview models! Th…

thats how they had it for years, is a mess, but controlled

Re: GPT-5.4

#418

Post by yieldcrv »

fhrow4484 wrote: post #360
strongpigeon wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Google essentially only has Preview models! The last GA is 2.5. As a developer, I can either use an outdated model or have zero insurances that the model doesn't get discontinued within weeks. What's funny is that there is this common meme at Google: you can either use the old, unmaintained tool that's used everywhere, or the new beta tools that doesn't quite do what you want. Not quite the same, but it did remind…

https://static0.anpoimages.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/...

Preview Road (only choice, and last preview was deprecated without warning)

Re: GPT-5.4

#420

Post by m3kw9 »

irishcoffee wrote: post #377
creamyhorror wrote: post #223

I've only used 5.4 for 1 prompt (edit: 3@high now) so far (reasoning: extra high, took really long), and it was to analyse my codebase and write an evaluation on a topic. But I found its writing and analysis thoughtful, precise, and surprisingly clearly written, unlike 5.3-Codex. It feels very lucid and uses human phrasing. It might be my AGENTS.md requiring clearer, simpler language, but at least 5.4's doing a good…

> It might be my AGENTS.md requiring clearer, simpler language If you gave the exact same markdown file to me and I posted ed the exact same prompts as you, would I get the same results?

you probably can't and asking agents.md to "make it clearer" will likely give you the illusion of clearer language without actual well structured tests. agents.md is to usually change what the llm should focus on doing more that suits you. Not to say stuff like "be better", "make no mistakes"
Post reply on HN