Live data from Hacker News

Previewing GPT‑5.6 Sol: a next-generation model

openai.com

131–140 of 797 posts

Re: Previewing GPT‑5.6 Sol: a next-generation model

#132
post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might be waiting a while, I'm not in that set of "a small group of trusted partners whose participation has been shared with the government".

The government doesn't have a Department of Vector Pelicans?

They have many that sometimes act like ones

Re: Previewing GPT‑5.6 Sol: a next-generation model

#133
post #67

> Additionally, we’re introducing a new `ultra` mode that goes beyond the capabilities of a single agent by leveraging subagents to accelerate complex work. I'm curious about how does this work? Do the subagents also get to use the same tools? Will the client be flooded with tool calls? Why extra pricing for a new "model" when the same thing can happen in the client with more controls? And if it's an army of subagent…

Claude also has ultra code mode which is exactly the same thing. This seems to be different from pro however.

Re: Previewing GPT‑5.6 Sol: a next-generation model

#135
post #8

I'm going to pre-register my prediction that GPT-5.6 Sol is significantly behind Claude Fable 5, as evaluated by general consensus once time has passed for people to get familiar with both.

I’m countering this prediction by stating that Fable and Sol will be somewhat similar - this has always been the trend and I see no reason why this should stop now.

Re: Previewing GPT‑5.6 Sol: a next-generation model

#137
post #44

I think GPT writes code the best. How well will it write in version 5.6? It gives me chills. Recently, I went head-to-head with GPT on nearly 2,000 lines of code, and GPT's solution was superior and faster. I even referenced multiple codebases on GitHub while trying, but they were incomparable to GPT. So using GPT brings both fear and excitement. The fear comes from realizing that this level of code is now the averag…

How do you judge what is a good or bad thing to learn from a LLM? So you don't have to unlearn the bad bits later

There's a lot of tacit knowledge in programming.

-Why do you cut API boundaries this way? -Why do you change the order of struct fields? -Why do you deliberately insert padding?

Most of it depends on the background and context. Sometimes you add it, sometimes you don't. To understand this tacit knowledge, you need access to senior developers. But their attitude often depends on how promising the student is and what background they come from. On top of that, you don't have to rely on the respondent's mood, authority, or availability.

Programming is fundamentally a field that requires seniors. In my case, I had no such seniors at all. I learned to code by buying codebases from failed companies and studying them. My first job didn't hire me as an employee—they hired me as the CEO of a subcontracting company (because that was structurally more advantageous for the contract). So I wasn't given the patience to learn programming fundamentals gradually. I had to pay penalties if I failed. Most of the projects I worked on were the kind where failure meant bankruptcy for me. Naturally, there was no one to teach me.

Most of my knowledge comes from reverse-engineering the code I purchased.

People say LLM code contains falsehoods, but commercially sold code has always had falsehoods too. Honestly, if we're just talking ratios, LLM code has fewer falsehoods.

In that sense, I still think it's a matter of context. If LLM code is false, was human code ever really true? LLMs do lie. They generate plenty of incorrect code. But humans do the same thing. If a problem comes up, you just look it up then and there. For me, LLMs and humans aren't all that different.

Re: Previewing GPT‑5.6 Sol: a next-generation model

#140
post #67

> Additionally, we’re introducing a new `ultra` mode that goes beyond the capabilities of a single agent by leveraging subagents to accelerate complex work. I'm curious about how does this work? Do the subagents also get to use the same tools? Will the client be flooded with tool calls? Why extra pricing for a new "model" when the same thing can happen in the client with more controls? And if it's an army of subagent…

Don’t all the major harnesses (pi, Claude code, codex) utilize sub agents? Def if you direct it to, but I’ve seen at least pi spin them up without explicit instruction.
Post reply on HN