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

Previewing GPT‑5.6 Sol: a next-generation model

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 797 posts

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

#331

Post by Sidio »

gck1 wrote: post #162
mohsen1 wrote: 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…

If it's anything like ClaudeCode's ultracode, it's nothing new or revolutionary. It's essentially a bunch of subagents being called by a deterministic script written by the main model thread, each eating tokens for lunch and output of which is synthesized by an orchestrator agent.

The fact that it's even named Ultra is pretty telling.

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

#332

Post by lossolo »

algoth1 wrote: post #315
lossolo wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He created Django, what do you mean he's not an engineer? I specifically said that he is not an ML engineer (emphasis on ML), so I'm not sure what Python web frameworks have to do with anything. > Also 'low-effort??' his posts are extremely in-depth, clearly very thought through with a significant amount of time and energy And yes, low effort. Pelican was low effort, his Fable test was low effort, his HN filter etc…

We at HN: https://xkcd.com/2501/ to basically say that I think you might be considering low-effort what’s actually an attempt at simplifying - which is arguably higher effort

> you might be considering low-effort what’s actually an attempt at simplifying - which is arguably higher effort

I'm not saying that simplifying complex topics is low-effort, good simplification can obviously require a lot of work and I fully agree here.

What I meant is more that some of these tests feel methodologically sloppy, they are too shallow, miss important technical context, do not control for enough variables etc, yet the conclusions are sometimes presented lets just say... too strongly, as I don't want to be too harsh.

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

#333

Post by swalsh »

gandreani wrote: post #177

Easily the most interesting part of this announcement is buried in the second to last paragraph: "We're also launching GPT‑5.6 Sol on Cerebras at up to 750 tokens per second in July, bringing frontier intelligence to customers at unprecedented speed. Access will initially be limited to select customers as we expand capacity." 750 tokens/s on a frontier model is going to be extremely interesting. I doubt this new vers…

This would be amazing for some of our "real-time" workflows, that need to fallback to AI for one reason or another. What used to happen is a rules based system did the majority of work, and occasional corner case would fall back to humans. Then we moved AI in, still not real time, but much faster. Cerebras could make that even faster.

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

#334

Post by Sidio »

alansaber wrote: post #142
mohsen1 wrote: 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…

I'm shocked they didn't use subagents already. Maybe they're just talking about their web deployment being unified with codex?

With Codex, subagents are only used if you specifically prompt for them. Unlike Claude Code. Odd since it's the former with excess compute available to them.

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

#335

Post by khurs »

hereme888 wrote: post #192

Seems like OpenAI's strategy to release models after Anthropic has been paying off. Is it just me, or does it seem like Anthropic has been more of a pioneer the past few years, and OpenAI tries to copy features they like?

OpenAi dropped what they called 'side quests' like Sora [0] after Anthropic pursued a strategy of targeting software engineers.

In many companies, it's IT who will have major input into which company they sign up with as non-technical leaders need guidance, and by making IT fan boys of Claude Code, the enterprise contracts followed.

[0] https://builtin.com/articles/openai-side-projects

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

#336

Post by citadel_melon »

ffsm8 wrote: post #197
adrianN wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most FSF guys actually have very nuanced views on the topic and you’re doing everyone a disservice by reducing it to an extremist sound bite.

Thankfully he didn't say that they're all like that. Instead he pointed out the few that are as a well known example of similar behavior. If you reread the comment with a fresh mind you'll notice that you misunderstood what he wrote

When attacking archetypes of people, there is some responsibility to make clear who you’re attacking and why, even to someone who’s not being hyper-open-minded. At least if you want them to learn from you: which may or may not be your goal. When you attack/signal you’re on the offensive, it is foolish to believe that they won’t knee-jerk attack back and become closed minded at least a little.

Regardless, the “misinterpretation” of the parent comment is actually a plausible interpretation. I suspend my judgement on what the actual “correct” interpretation of the original comment is: there are too many plausible interpretations to deductively decide. But I do know that since they first comment brought up a contentious issue, they should have put more work into crafting their message so there aren’t so many plausible interpretations that are contradictory. Or alternatively, they should have specified more precisely who they were talking about without a shadow of a doubt. That is if the commenter cared to be properly interpreted, but that may not be their goal. There are many reasonable reasons why that wouldn’t be their goal.

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

#337

Post by algoth1 »

lossolo wrote: post #332
algoth1 wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We at HN: https://xkcd.com/2501/ to basically say that I think you might be considering low-effort what’s actually an attempt at simplifying - which is arguably higher effort

> you might be considering low-effort what’s actually an attempt at simplifying - which is arguably higher effort I'm not saying that simplifying complex topics is low-effort, good simplification can obviously require a lot of work and I fully agree here. What I meant is more that some of these tests feel methodologically sloppy, they are too shallow, miss important technical context, do not control for enough variab…

Oh, i see. That’s entirely correct. I think the pelican test is more of a meme at this point, similar to Ethan’s Otter on an airplane for video models

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

#338

Post by lmf4lol »

wolttam wrote: post #56
HyperL0gi wrote: post #29

Here is a trend I'm noticing: - GPT-5 mini costs $0.25/$2 and will be discontinued in December. - GPT-5.4 mini costs $0.75/$4.5 and is supposed to be the replacement. - GPT-5.4 nano costs $0.2/$1.25 and, while it ranks better in benchmarks than GPT-5 mini, it's not even close when you test it in real scenarios. So you're left being forced to go to GPT 5.4 mini if you use 5 mini today. The same thing is happening here…

If you have no need for Anthropic/OpenAI's frontier model capability, you may be better served with an open-weight model that can't be taken away. Edit: > GPT-5 does the job. I bring up DeepSeek V4 Flash a lot on HN, but I want to mention that according to Artificial Analysis, it trades blows with GPT-5 (high) (from August, 2025) [0] [0]: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/comparisons/deepseek-v4...

We rolled out Deepseek V4 Flash to our customers and it was an absolute disaster, unfortunately. It was not able to follow simple commands, always "forgot" to do things, lied consistently about its work, and so on. It was pretty good though on on-off work, like summarizing something or executing simple commands, so we are experimenting now with using it for subagent work with clear instructions and hand off.

Deepseek V4 Pro on the other hand is a really really good main driver and we have a lot of success using it. Its not Opus or GPT-5.5 level but on its way. Kimi 2.6 as well btw.. so there is already quite some choice.

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

#339

Post by beering »

small_model wrote: post #291
jasonjmcghee wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Try gpt-5.3-codex-spark - it's 1000 TPS and from my experience more capable than 5.4 mini. If you have a subscription it's a different pool of usage.

Used it, very fast but tiny context window and doesn't have good reasoning. (good for quick simple code changes)

Agreed, 1000tok/s just fills up the context window (which is big by 2004 standards) super fast. But seems like 5.3-spark was just a taste of what’s to come.

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

#340

Post by beering »

order-matters wrote: post #260
sberens wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For comparison, openrouter says opus 4.8 is ~55 tokens/s and fast mode is ~102. 750 tokens/s for their largest model is going to be nuts

the more advanced models also utilize a lot more tokens, and a lot of these extra tokens may go towards safeguards at a higher rate than prior models as well. not to say a speed boost isnt there but if they didnt increase tokens / s at all youd likely see things slow down a lot with the new model compared to current

I think regular users will still have the old speed, so should be easy to tell whether it is more thinkier than 5.5.
Post reply on HN