When will GPT-5.6 Protomolecule drop? Me and the boys on Eros can't wait to get our hands on it!
Beltalowda!
Previewing GPT‑5.6 Sol: a next-generation model
701–710 of 797 posts
Re: Previewing GPT‑5.6 Sol: a next-generation model
#702[dead]
Re: Previewing GPT‑5.6 Sol: a next-generation model
#703Earlier 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.
For some things that's acceptable or even good. If I want to add up a list of a million numbers human assistants aren't bringing any advantages though.
Re: Previewing GPT‑5.6 Sol: a next-generation model
#704Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hopefully like this (but smarter): https://chatjimmy.ai/
Why is the insane speed of 13KTPS of this site is not more on the the top of the AI conversations?
Because there's been nothing to discuss since their announcement. Their API access immediately closed due to overwhelming demand and they didn't fab newer models than Llama3 yet.
Probably they will make bank selling to HFT for a while.
Re: Previewing GPT‑5.6 Sol: a next-generation model
#705[flagged]
Re: Previewing GPT‑5.6 Sol: a next-generation model
#706Earlier quoted context omitted.
I really don't feel this way. Seemed pretty similar to me, noticeably better, but marginally. What am I missing?
It may depend on your specific workload. E.g. for regular webdev work Opus is more than adequate, for heavy duty data analysis, for experimental stuff and for complex systems it was night and day. I had only a few places where I did spot a difference but that difference was significant and I can imagine where people would be amazed.
It's interesting, I tried a decent amount of "heavy duty data analysis", and found it pretty similar. But a lot of what I did was about it finding and cobbling together the right things from our existing library of domain specific tooling, which opus is already good at. But perhaps it would have impressed me more if it were starting from zero.
What kind of "experimental stuff and complex systems" did you try that it excelled at?
Re: Previewing GPT‑5.6 Sol: a next-generation model
#707Hijacking popular thread to ask: What are the usage limits now for Codex and Claude? A while back I gave the same task to both, and Codex used 20x less of my 5-hour limit (both on the $20/month plan). (This annoyed me since I tend to prefer Claude, but the limits at the time made it unusable for anything serious.) However, since that time, both providers have massively reduced usage allowances (and at least one of th…
[dead]
Re: Previewing GPT‑5.6 Sol: a next-generation model
#708Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have long felt like "out of the box", I really dislike gpt's coding style. It seems really verbose and likely to write way too much error handling and wordy comments and worse at finding existing functionality to reuse rather than writing everything from scratch. This has been relatively easy to mitigate with prompting, but I still find it annoying. YMMV I guess!
I think you could be right. I do use excessive error-handling code and verbose comments — that's true. But most of my time is spent on delivery, and the biggest problem with delivery is that if a bug occurs during runtime, the client curses me out. So to me, GPT code feels meticulous. Open source contributors might be different. Most of them write code after long periods of deliberation. They take their brightest ide…
You don't want to handle errors in all the leaves of the system the way AIs have a tendency to, because you very rarely have the right context that deep in the stack to actually handle the error in an intelligent way. So what they end up doing (IMO) is actually hiding problems deep in the stack, in this effort to avoid a visible crash.
I think it's very similar to the tendency to write too much from scratch and reuse too little, in both cases what is necessary is a broader view of how the whole system fits together, rather than only the specific method / file / module being written.
Re: Previewing GPT‑5.6 Sol: a next-generation model
#709Earlier quoted context omitted.
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...
deepseek has no part of their privacy policy on their API about training. They are 100% training on every single word you give it. If your customers are fine with that, your IP is not interesting, then you can use it.
I self-host Flash actually, but yeah.
When I use their API I use it knowing that they probably train on the data, and knowing that it's probably used to improve future iterations of their models.
But I use their API extremely rarely lately, because local Flash is good enough for me the vast majority of the time
Re: Previewing GPT‑5.6 Sol: a next-generation model
#710Earlier quoted context omitted.
The first sentence is “understand or learn any intellectual task that a human can.” Whatever you think of the benefits of LLMs, they don’t understand and they can only learn during the training period and with very minor adjustments in post training. So, no I don’t think any of these models are generally intelligent.
> they don’t understand I have not seen any instance of this frequently-made assertion which is at all justified. It seems to rely on a definition of "understand" which is more about spirituality than actual observable evidence (they clearly can comprehend even complex tasks well enough to execute on them, and if you won't call that "understanding", you're playing word games rather than stating an objective fact). Li…
The "it's not X it's Y" where Y qnd X are the same indicates a lack of understanding.