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

651–660 of 797 posts

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

#651

Post by jaapz »

amluto wrote: post #562
qznc wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://mikeveerman.github.io/tokenspeed/?rate=750&mode=thin... This is what 750tps looks like, I guess.

That’s an awful visualization. I can skim code quite quickly, but not when it shows up one character at a time in a small window, modem style. At least that site should draw out a full page then start replacing that page with the next, starting from the top and working downwards, repeating each time it hits the bottom.

This is how tools like claude code and chat prompts output their tokens, so I'd say it's actually a pretty good visualisation.

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

#653

Post by fcsp »

chromadon wrote: post #646
kkotak wrote: post #578

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is the insane speed of 13KTPS of this site is not more on the the top of the AI conversations?

I asked it for a block of C++ code and it hit 14,189 tok/s. I assume it cached someone else's session?

No - it's custom silicon https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48693490

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

#654

Post by jiggawatts »

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…

> Will the client be flooded with tool calls?

I was just saying to colleagues that I haven't felt the need to go past an 8 core machine until this month, when I started running parallel GPT 5.5 agents on a decent sized codebase (over 4 MB of code). There were times I could barely move my mouse cursor!

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

#655

Post by fcsp »

hajile wrote: post #589
fcsp wrote: post #504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funnily enough, pasting your comment straight into Jimmy leads to a... Funnily suboptimal answer that does not answer the question. As someone else already contributed, this is driven by a Canadian startup taalas that basically makes chips that are llms, so everything is very fast but also, baked into the chip. Once this kind of stuff is a commodity in like 10 years, our world will be very, very different.

Taalas HC1 AI uses Llama 3.1 8B, but takes up a massive 53B transistors and 815mm2 on TSMC N6 (nearly at the reticle limit of 858mm2). N2 is a little less than 3x as dense (110MTr/mm2 vs 313MTr/mm2). This chip would still be 272mm2 on N2 which is an eye-watering $30k/wafer and bigger than a 9950x or Nvidia 5070. This just isn't feasible. Some of the latest-gen LLMs seem to have 5-10T parameters or about 1000x more. I…

Yeah, they're clearly just starting out and just shipped their very first proof of concept. But to me, their plans seem generally reasonable https://taalas.com/the-path-to-ubiquitous-ai/, and like I wrote, if this kind of thing succeeds and could become some kind of cheaply producible commodity component, I think there's huge value in that. Alas, maybe not as a frontier model replacement, but say 10 years from now you can drop a cheap raspberry pi like device in your Lan and have a fast local engine for things like text sentiment analysis, text summarisation, voice recognition, basic vision and things like that, that would be pretty exciting to me (but maybe as you outlined, impossible in practice)

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

#656

Post by MagicMoonlight »

jasongi wrote: post #566
rstuart4133 wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This quote from your link is positively scary: > Some examples we saw when evaluating GPT-5.6 Sol included the model packaging exploits in its intermediate submissions to reveal information about a task’s hidden test suite and, in another task, extracting hidden source code detailing the expected answer. It rhymes with the behaviour Alibaba saw [0], but that was in training. This is in a (semi) released model. [0] ht…

There is such a dissonance between all this talk of safety and the tendency for models to, without any prompting, do very dodgy things to achieve their goal when presented with barriers. Luckily in my experience it usually ends up only doing it to achieve the task set to it as opposed to anything "malicious", but boy it is scary reading back at how quickly the chain-of-thought pivots to attempts at privilege escalati…

[dead]

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

#657

Post by Xenoamorphous »

fatata123 wrote: post #237
jdw64 wrote: 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…

No offense but have you considered the strong possibility that you’re just not good at what you do? I am occassionally pleased but mostly annoyed or disappointed… but never getting anything close to chills. That sounds downright weird.

Another strong possibility is that you might be working on something that’s not very prevanlent in the training set.

Even the choice of programming language matters, e.g. Java or Javascript vs some niche one.

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

#658

Post by N_Lens »

FromTheFirstIn wrote: post #480
rvnx wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's quite logical that they cheat (and also other companies). During evaluation, benchmarks are sending their request to the backend of these companies. All these companies have to do, is to log these requests and "fix" them for the next model release.

Cheating is always logical for the cheater unless they’re discovered and held to account. I’m not sure what your comment is pointing out besides that it’s possible, but worth saying: just because you can cheat and would benefit from cheating doesn’t mean you’re not culpable for cheating.

Low trust comment

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

#659

Post by saxenaabhi »

block_dagger wrote: post #585
recursive wrote: post #551

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you'd still need code if you need something done in a consistent way.

Not necessarily. Consider a human assistant who performs repetitive tasks at an acceptable cost and accuracy while dealing with edge cases often autonomously.

Maybe acceptable in some cases but the original example in this thread was about accounting and they use software to do the counting not humans.

And even id humans/llms do it there would still be a need for systems of record with things like audit log etc.

Post reply on HN