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

GPT-5.5

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 1001 posts

Re: GPT-5.5

#331

Post by dist-epoch »

louiereederson wrote: post #27

For a 56.7 score on the Artificial Intelligence Index, GPT 5.5 used 22m output tokens. For a score of 57, Opus 4.7 used 111m output tokens. The efficiency gap is enormous. Maybe it's the difference between GB200 NVL72 and an Amazon Tranium chip?

If it's a new pretrain, the token embeddings could be wider - you can pack more info into a token making it's way through the system.

Like Chinese versus English - you need fewer Chinese characters to say something than if you write that in English.

So this model internally could be thinking in much more expressive embeddings.

Re: GPT-5.5

#332

Post by mpaepper »

nickvec wrote: post #228

I'm conflicted whether I should keep my Claude Max 5x subscription at this point and switch back to GPT/Codex... anyone else in a similar position? I'd rather not be paying for two AI providers and context switching between the two, though I'm having a hard time gauging if Claude Code is still the "cream of the crop" for SWE work. I haven't played around with Codex much.

I switched from CC to Codex a few days ago. I get limited much less and the code quality is similar, so not looking back

Re: GPT-5.5

#333

Post by bee_rider »

narcindin wrote: post #289
mikepurvis wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reminds me a lot of the Lena short story, about uploaded brains being used for "virtual image workloading": > MMAcevedo's demeanour and attitude contrast starkly with those of nearly all other uploads taken of modern adult humans, most of which boot into a state of disorientation which is quickly replaced by terror and extreme panic. Standard procedures for securing the upload's cooperation such as red-washing, blue-…

Crazy, I could have sworn this story was from a passage in 3 Body Problem (book 2). Memory is quite the mysterious thing.

Hmm, 3 body problem and the Acevedo story got mixed up for this copy of MMnarcindin. Probably an aliasing issue from the new lossy compression algorithm.

Re: GPT-5.5

#335

Post by pdntspa »

aliljet wrote: post #161

I've found myself so deeply embedded in the Claude Max subscription that I'm worried about potentially makign a switch. How are people making sure they stay nimble enough not to get trarpped by one company's ecosystem over another? For what it's worth, Opus 4.7 has not been a step up and it's come with an enormously higher usage of the subscription Anthropic offers making the entire offering double worse.

As a rule I've been symlinking or referencing generic "agents" versions of claude workflow files instead of placing those files directly in claude's purview

AGENTS.md / skills / etc

Re: GPT-5.5

#336

Post by throwaway613746 »

puppystench wrote: post #145
Someone1234 wrote: post #65

I'd like to draw people's attention to this section of this page: https://developers.openai.com/codex/pricing?codex-usage-limi... Note the Local Messages between 5.3, 5.4, and 5.5. And, yes, I did read the linked article and know they're claiming that 5.5's new efficient should make it break-even with 5.4, but the point stands, tighter limits/higher prices.

For API usage, GPT-5.5 is 2x the price of GPT-5.4, ~4x the price of GPT-5.1, and ~10x the price of Kimi-2.6. Unfortunately I think the lesson they took from Anthropic is that devs get really reliant and even addicted on coding agents, and they'll happily pay any amount for even small benefits.

[dead]

Re: GPT-5.5

#337

Post by alansaber »

_alternator_ wrote: post #330

> One engineer at NVIDIA who had early access to the model went as far as to say: "Losing access to GPT‑5.5 feels like I've had a limb amputated.” This quote is more sinister than I think was intended; it likely applies to all frontier coding models. As they get better, we quickly come to rely on them for coding. It's like playing a game on God Mode. Engineers become dependent; it's truly addictive. This matches my o…

That's the path we've been going down for a few years now. The current hedge is that frontier labs are actively competing to win users. The backup hedge is that open source LLMs can provide cheap compute. There will always be economical access to LLMs, but the provider with the best models will be able to charge basically whatever they want and still have buyers.

Re: GPT-5.5

#338

Post by gpm »

simonw wrote: post #195

This doesn't have API access yet, but OpenAI seem to approve of the Codex API backdoor used by OpenClaw these days... https://twitter.com/steipete/status/2046775849769148838 and https://twitter.com/romainhuet/status/2038699202834841962 And that backdoor API has GPT-5.5. So here's a pelican: https://simonwillison.net/2026/Apr/23/gpt-5-5/#and-some-peli... I used this new plugin for LLM: https://github.com/simonw/llm-op…

I for one delight in bicycles where neither wheel can turn!

It continues to amaze me that these models that definitely know what bicycle geometry actually looks like somewhere in their weights produces such implausibly bad geometry.

Also mildly interesting, and generally consistent with my experience with LLMs, that it produced the same obvious geometry issue both times.

Re: GPT-5.5

#339

Post by simianwords »

_alternator_ wrote: post #330

> One engineer at NVIDIA who had early access to the model went as far as to say: "Losing access to GPT‑5.5 feels like I've had a limb amputated.” This quote is more sinister than I think was intended; it likely applies to all frontier coding models. As they get better, we quickly come to rely on them for coding. It's like playing a game on God Mode. Engineers become dependent; it's truly addictive. This matches my o…

eh this kind of FUD needs to stop because it is kind of normal and expected and in fact good to have relation like this with technology.

Re: GPT-5.5

#340

Post by alansaber »

6thbit wrote: post #176

Mythos 5.5 SWE-bench Pro 77.8%* 58.6% Terminal-bench-2.0 82.0% 82.7%* GPQA Diamond 94.6%* 93.6% H. Last Exam 56.8%* 41.4% H. Last Exam (tools) 64.7%* 52.2% BrowseComp 86.9% 84.4% (90.1% Pro)* OSWorld-Verified 79.6%* 78.7% Still far from Mythos on SWE-bench but quite comparable otherwise. Source for mythos values: https://www.anthropic.com/glasswing

A single benchmark is meaningless, you always get quirky results on some benchmarks.
Post reply on HN