Live data from Hacker News

GPT-5.5

openai.com

431–440 of 1001 posts

Re: GPT-5.5

#431

Still huge hallucination rate, unfortunately at 86%. To compare, Opus sits at 36%. Source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models?omniscience=omniscience...

grok is 17%? And that's the lowest, most models are like 80%+? While hallucination is probably closer to 100% depending on the question. This benchmark makes no sense.

No one serious uses grok.

Re: GPT-5.5

#432

This is 3x the price of GPT-5.1, released just 6 months ago. Is no one else alarmed by the trend? What happens when the cheaper models are deprecated/removed over time?

Not really a big problem. Switch to KIMI, Qwen, GLM. You’ll get 95% quality of GPT or Anthropic for a 10th of a price. I feel like the real dependency is more mental, more of a habit but if you actually dip your toes outside OpenAI, Anthropic, Gemini from time to time, you realise that the actual difference in code is not huge if prompted in a good way. Maybe you’ll have to tell it to do something twice and it won’t be a one shot, but it’s really not an issue at all.

Re: GPT-5.5

#434

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.

Start building your own liteweight "harness" that does things you need. Ignore all functionality of clients like CC or Codex and just implement whatever you start missing in your harness.

You can replace pretty much everything - skills system, subagents, etc with just tmux and a simple cli tool that the official clients can call.

Oh and definitely disable any form of "memory" system.

Essentially, treat all tooling that wraps the models as dumb gateways to inference. Then provider switch is basically a one line config change.

Re: GPT-5.5

#435

> 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…

Well, they obviously are going to say that, they have vested interest in OpenAI and thus Nvidia stock price growing.

Also, I honestly can’t believe the 10x mantra is being still repeated.

Re: GPT-5.5

#436

> 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.

Open source LLMs aren’t about cost foremost, but stability.

Re: GPT-5.5

#437
Releases keep shifting from API forward to product forward, with API now lagging behind proprietary product surface and special partnerships.

I'd not be surprised if this is the year where some models simply stop being available as a plain API, while foundation model companies succeed at capturing more use cases in their own software.

Re: GPT-5.5

#438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything since that launch to this release has been a PR disaster for Anthropic.

I can argue that disaster started mid-4.6, when they started juggling with rate limits while hitting uptime problems. Great we have some healthy competition and waiting for the next move from Deepmind.

Correct. Anthropic has been on disaster train since January and they can't seem to get off that train.

Re: GPT-5.5

#439

A playable 3D dungeon arena prototype built with Codex and GPT models. Codex handled the game architecture, TypeScript/Three.js implementation, combat systems, enemy encounters, HUD feedback, and GPT‑generated environment textures. Character models, character textures, and animations were created with third-party asset-generation tools The game that this prompt generated looks pretty decent visually. A big part of th…

LLM models can not do spacial reasoning. I haven't tried with GPT, however, Claude can not solve a Rubik Cube no matter how much I try with prompt engineering. I got Opus 4.6 to get ~70% of the puzzle solved but it got stuck. At $20 a run it prohibitively expensive. The point is if we can prompt an LLM to reason about 3 dimensions, we likely will be able to apply that to math problems which it isn't able to solve cur…

How are you handing the cube state to the model?

Re: GPT-5.5

#440

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

Which plan? And how are the weekly limits on that plan compared to CCs equivalent subscription?

I don't really care about 5h limits, I can queue up work and just get agents to auto continue, but weekly ones are anxiety inducing.

Post reply on HN