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

GPT-5.6 Sol Ultra will be in Codex

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 433 posts

Re: GPT-5.6 Sol Ultra will be in Codex

#181

Post by noduerme »

OtomotO wrote: post #164
wjnc wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m in Finance and learned pretty quickly that to point out the implicit future cost raises based on the cost the LLM-providers need to recoup was unpopular at best (STFU better describes the situation). Running full force into a bear trap.

The sad part is that you work in FINANCE of all things and this happens there. Like: What competence do decision makers in FINANCE have, when they are this oblivious to economics?

A better question would be how anyone who thinks about economic fundamentals could get a job in finance (or stay in it).

[no offense intended to the parent post, I'm on their side]

Re: GPT-5.6 Sol Ultra will be in Codex

#182

Post by bob1029 »

noduerme wrote: post #171
wjnc wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m in Finance and learned pretty quickly that to point out the implicit future cost raises based on the cost the LLM-providers need to recoup was unpopular at best (STFU better describes the situation). Running full force into a bear trap.

I've seen that mentality and gone to bat to convince a boardroom that it's the wrong approach, when people were star-struck by the possibilities. Luckily I'm in a position as CTO of a (very non-tech, brick and mortar) company that entrusts me to manage their budget for new features, and prevent erosion of our software/logistics over the long term. And I've come down decidedly on the side of not having LLMs fuck with…

> I shot down similar arguments in favor of outsourcing overseas for years. Outsourcing any critical logic to an LLM is even worse.

Outsourcing to another continent of humans and supplementing workflows with LLMs are entirely different operational universes. I think it is fair to put them on the same spectrum, but they're really far apart.

I'd argue outsourcing is a far more aggressive abdication of ownership of the technology than bringing an LLM agent in house and having it light a few fires under a few asses.

Re: GPT-5.6 Sol Ultra will be in Codex

#183

Post by make3 »

jvuygbbkuurx wrote: post #113
make3 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that people relying on the tools too much is the first sign I would identify to mean the bubble is popping

The market is priced at expecting AGI levels of breakthroughs. Just a very useful tool for programming is definitely not enough to keep the music playing.

the thing went from the transformer paper in 2017 to basically doing your job for you in 2026

Re: GPT-5.6 Sol Ultra will be in Codex

#184

Post by re-thc »

noduerme wrote: post #134
throw394042 wrote: post #30

I'm working in large US corporation. And I see that I already have access to 5.6-Sol Ultra on my corporate account. I haven't really used it yet. 2 months ago management was showing us scoreboards, praising leaders who used most tokens. Last few weeks, we're getting weekly emails, telling us that whenever we can - we should use cheaper models, and that we should watch the page which shows our tokens usage.

That's kinda hilarious. Pretty soon they might just ask people to write code themselves.

> Pretty soon they might just ask people to write code themselves.

GPT-10 Human Ultra

Re: GPT-5.6 Sol Ultra will be in Codex

#185

Post by jddj »

bob1029 wrote: post #182
noduerme wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen that mentality and gone to bat to convince a boardroom that it's the wrong approach, when people were star-struck by the possibilities. Luckily I'm in a position as CTO of a (very non-tech, brick and mortar) company that entrusts me to manage their budget for new features, and prevent erosion of our software/logistics over the long term. And I've come down decidedly on the side of not having LLMs fuck with…

> I shot down similar arguments in favor of outsourcing overseas for years. Outsourcing any critical logic to an LLM is even worse. Outsourcing to another continent of humans and supplementing workflows with LLMs are entirely different operational universes. I think it is fair to put them on the same spectrum, but they're really far apart. I'd argue outsourcing is a far more aggressive abdication of ownership of the…

It can be as similar to or as far from outsourcing as you allow it to be.

The "if AI code breaks, who will fix it? -> "AI will fix it" exchange has (anecdotally) been very common among executives, which is much closer to outsourcing than programming.

Re: GPT-5.6 Sol Ultra will be in Codex

#186

Post by barrkel »

tmountain wrote: post #178
whstl wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The craziest to me was someone saying “we are using AI in daily processes, now we need to automate”. But of course to some asshole non-technical people it meant asking for their vibe coded bullshit to be merged into production without review and fighting about it.

The craziest for me is companies that sticking stochastic agents into automated business processes and expecting stable/reliable outcomes. Businesses want deterministic processes in the vast majority of cases.

People are stochastic. You build reliable processes out of unreliable parts with feedback and self-correcting mechanisms. AI is not actually magically special in this regard. It has higher variance and we're still figuring out how to get all the tradeoffs right.

Re: GPT-5.6 Sol Ultra will be in Codex

#187

Post by noduerme »

bob1029 wrote: post #182
noduerme wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen that mentality and gone to bat to convince a boardroom that it's the wrong approach, when people were star-struck by the possibilities. Luckily I'm in a position as CTO of a (very non-tech, brick and mortar) company that entrusts me to manage their budget for new features, and prevent erosion of our software/logistics over the long term. And I've come down decidedly on the side of not having LLMs fuck with…

> I shot down similar arguments in favor of outsourcing overseas for years. Outsourcing any critical logic to an LLM is even worse. Outsourcing to another continent of humans and supplementing workflows with LLMs are entirely different operational universes. I think it is fair to put them on the same spectrum, but they're really far apart. I'd argue outsourcing is a far more aggressive abdication of ownership of the…

Other than the delay time, I'm not sure I see the difference. You're removing your primary from the job of writing code, putting them into an editorial role, which removes responsibility and agency and actual hands-on understanding. The quality of the code is beside the point. More friction (language barriers, time zone difference) is actually better if you want to maintain institutional knowledge, because it requires more intellectual engagement. Accepting the LLM answer is too easy and leads to a decay of the systems knowledge and of the thought process.

[edit] as the sibling points out, decayed system knowledge leads to relying on the LLM to fix the bugs the LLM introduced, which causes further decay in the institutional ability to reason with the business logic in code.

Re: GPT-5.6 Sol Ultra will be in Codex

#188

Post by solenoid0937 »

bloppe wrote: post #169
solenoid0937 wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Open source AI fails first contact with sufficiently-intelligent-as-to-be-dangerous AI. The day Mythos class models are open sourced will not be a good day. I don't think you understand the impact that will have on the world and on cyber defenders everywhere. It will be pure chaos. Even if you don't think Mythos-class is the bar, open source has to stop at some point, you don't hand everyone a superweapon.

Every single one of those sentences is highly dubious. Cyber-defenders would be pretty jazzed about having easier access to Mythos-class models. Cyber-defense is easier with better tools.

Cyber defenders already have access to Mythos class models at most companies with the biggest user facing products and services. They are using them extensively (including on OSS deps)

Handing every skiddie and nation state and APT and hacker group access to Mythos does not help cyber defenders

Even if you don't think Mythos is a big deal: At a certain point models become smart enough as to be dangerous, and you don't give everyone a superweapon. Open source has an end of the line sooner or later.

Re: GPT-5.6 Sol Ultra will be in Codex

#189

Post by abraxas_ »

throw394042 wrote: post #30

I'm working in large US corporation. And I see that I already have access to 5.6-Sol Ultra on my corporate account. I haven't really used it yet. 2 months ago management was showing us scoreboards, praising leaders who used most tokens. Last few weeks, we're getting weekly emails, telling us that whenever we can - we should use cheaper models, and that we should watch the page which shows our tokens usage.

We are using this brand new hammer to build everything!

Please stop using this brand new hammer for glassmaking.

Re: GPT-5.6 Sol Ultra will be in Codex

#190

Post by bob1029 »

tmountain wrote: post #178
whstl wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The craziest to me was someone saying “we are using AI in daily processes, now we need to automate”. But of course to some asshole non-technical people it meant asking for their vibe coded bullshit to be merged into production without review and fighting about it.

The craziest for me is companies that sticking stochastic agents into automated business processes and expecting stable/reliable outcomes. Businesses want deterministic processes in the vast majority of cases.

I'm struggling with the assertion that these models cannot provide reasonably deterministic guarantees.

I am using gpt to populate JSON objects conforming to a list of natural language constraints for purposes of generating fake customers. I am finding that gpt5+ never fucks up. Not even a little bit. I've ran this test hundreds of times with 20+ constraints and it's been perfect every time.

Stable information yields stable control flow. Humans are much more likely to forget one of the many constraints during testing. This happy mistake may incidentally cover an edge but it also means we lose coverage elsewhere.

I think whether or not the LLM should be allowed to directly author deterministic control flow (code) is mostly the same thing. If you have a lot of constraints you want to satisfy all at the same time, this can give you a hit very close to the ideal target very quickly. Not knowing exactly what you want is when the LLM takes you for a ride.

Post reply on HN