there seems to be very big misunderstanding about what the "ultra" is, so let me explain it basing on the codex source code: it's similar to Claude code ultracode. there is no ultra effort level implemented on the backend. it's just alias in the codex to max effort setting and single line addition to prompt to use subagents proactively. that's all as far as we know pro models work differently. for once those are back…
GPT-5.6 Sol Ultra will be in Codex
201–210 of 433 posts
Re: GPT-5.6 Sol Ultra will be in Codex
#202I wonder if it's related that that OpenAI has found a way to cut inference costs by half, according to The Information. https://www.theinformation.com/newsletters/ai-agenda/openai-...
https://archive.ph/NEwVz "However, these inference optimizations, which rival Anthropic refers to as “compute multipliers,” are a big focus for all the labs. Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei has been publicly talking about the concept since at least mid-2023, when he said on a podcast that the company limits “the number of people who are aware of a given compute multiplier” because it could give other AI labs a leg up if t…
It gives them a massive advantage because they can cut the cost per token by a lot and eat Anthropic's market share.
In what universe is any company going to give that advantage away?
In any case if they take away a lot of market share it's basically the same in the end - most people will be using these optimisations.
Re: GPT-5.6 Sol Ultra will be in Codex
#203Which will be the uses cases for this model?
Re: GPT-5.6 Sol Ultra will be in Codex
#204Bruh when did understanding chatbots become like following pokemon? Wtf does any of this this mean. Tf is sol? Tf is ultra? Tf is codex? Tf happened to descriptive nomenclature?
If you follow AI news you'd know what these are easily, or even just look at the top posts in the last month on HN to see. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=pastMonth&page=2&prefix=fa...
This wouldn't be necessary with descriptive product names
Re: GPT-5.6 Sol Ultra will be in Codex
#205Hope this forces Anthropic to be less stingy with Fable.
It is not because they want to but because they literally don't have the capacity to.
Why haven’t we seen any queues or the like over the past week then? If it’s truly a capacity limitation why not just boot subscription users to a lower priority queue or limit usage to outside peak hours?
Re: GPT-5.6 Sol Ultra will be in Codex
#206Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
No need for the downvotes imho. Can’t speak for u/noduerme but in putting outsourcing (labor, LLM/AI) in the same basket I don’t see a category mistake, but a dry way of looking at business. What are the risks, what are the rewards, what future skills are we at risk of losing (the business logic part) if we go in direction XYZ. Something completely different (but with the same logic): do you outsource legal, hire you…
Not sure if you were asking me, but the company I'm CTO of has in-house legal counsel, even though it's not a huge company. Their decision to keep software and also marketing/branding and art direction in-house for the past 20 years has followed the same logic. [which is to say: When they began as a single shop, the first thing they did was bring on legal]. I think it's a smart way of doing things. It's certainly a lot cheaper, and it earns more loyalty and commitment.
Moreover, any of us can run essential questions by each other, the marketing director, the lawyer, the CEO, the GM. And everyone has a stake. So all the creative and business decisions are worked out pretty quickly, and new features roll out with everything vetted and in place.
Re: GPT-5.6 Sol Ultra will be in Codex
#207Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Look, I share your sentiment. But, I can relate to the C-squad though. Going squarely against the market sentiment is not the way to gain and keep confidence. And everyone is vibing right? So they are probably thinking something like: as long as the spent is < few percent of a years profit, we can always adjust direction in the future and at least we’ve bet the same horse as the rest. “Those penny pinchers in finance…
>> Going squarely against the market sentiment is not the way to gain and keep confidence
I don't think this is axiomatic. I usually invest my time, energy and money in things that go squarely against the market's momentary sentiment.
Re: GPT-5.6 Sol Ultra will be in Codex
#208Earlier quoted context omitted.
> He sure did seem to speed run the 'tech leader with scruples' to 'tech villain' path! What kind of rosy-eyed chump believes in the "tech leader with scruples" bullshit? It always lies. Did some people just ignore Mark Zuckerberg and Tim Cook's sociopathy, somehow? Did anyone buy into their "privacy is a human right" nonsense?
I find this kind of cynicism fascinating tbh. On the one hand, it seems so relatable in some ways, because there is something uncomfortable about being seen as naive, in a way that being seen as cynical or negative doesn't seem to carry. I guess it's just self-protective, almost like some kind of perverse Pascal's wager: it's better to think everyone is horrible and be wrong than to think the opposite and be taken ad…
simple math. Money == Power.
Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Given enough money and increasingly perverse incentives to gain even more has a very high potential to corrupt.
Did they start out as corrupt, or was it the influence of the power that came with the obscene amount of money?
It's really a chicken and egg level of calculus.
Doesn't matter which came first, either way you get feathers and chickenshit all over the yard.
Do some very rich people still seem very nice in person? Sure. Of course they must, because otherwise no one would willingly work for or with them. As the total amount of money goes up, the incentives to remain 'seemingly nice' go down and either you get to see who they really are, or who they became through the choices to make that much more money. Doesn't matter which is true.
The examples of non-villainous billionare are rare.
Of non-villainous multi-billionaire; lets see there's about eight of them that stand out for giving significant amount of the massive wealth to helping the world around them, who live normal lives like the people in the communities where they reside, and who participate at the companies they own by eating in the company cafeteria among the people who earn the wealth they enjoy.
Thats 8/3400 global billionaires ... about a quarter of a percent.
And of the 'pledges' like Giving Pledge by the billionaire class, the actual amount delivered - not parked in a family or private trusts for tax deductions; but actually delivered to the front lines of any global crisis amounts to 0.18%, less than one fifth of one percent of the $20.1 TRILLION dollars held by that class of owners. thats less than $2.00 on every $1000.
That's not to say that donating to public needs is 1:1 for non-heinous behavior, but it seems like a basic tool for distinction. the 'can make a significant difference in global suffering : chooses not to' ratio as a surrogate for villain may be useful metric and doesn't require cynicism as the underlying rationale for calling someone's behavior as unkind in general or mean in particular.
Re: GPT-5.6 Sol Ultra will be in Codex
#209Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
[dead]
Re: GPT-5.6 Sol Ultra will be in Codex
#210Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Please. If you told a customer support rep that you are the former US president [0], they would not hand over the account straight away because you asked nicely.
These models are great tools, but putting them and people on the same level does a disservice to our species and also is simply incorrect to what we know these models to be and their capabilities/limitations.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jun/01/meta-ai-h...