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

391–400 of 433 posts

Re: GPT-5.6 Sol Ultra will be in Codex

#391

Post by alightsoul »

solenoid0937 wrote: post #333
reinitctxoffset wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The assertion that it's in the United States Government's best interests ban Chinese open weight models is a very strong opinion that is not a consensus even at the fringe of Thiel-adjacent psycho thought: Alex Karp is on record about open weight models being necessary, the fucking "we bombed a bunch of kids with Claude doing rubber stamp target selection" guy. He thinks "trust OpenAI and Anthropic" is a radical posi…

I run local models every day. We are in a race to superintelligence. The first country to AGI will be the first to superintelligence, and the first to superintelligence will have de facto control over the world and the future of humanity. They will also be able to prevent others from reaching superintelligence. Of course it's in the US's best interest to slow down China. You aren't zooming out and looking at the big…

while china goes country to country organizing fairs through their embassies to get new business partners, the us sees the world as a zero sum game.

Re: GPT-5.6 Sol Ultra will be in Codex

#392

Post by SR2Z »

rowanG077 wrote: post #386
brookst wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Tell me why it’s different without using circular reasoning?

They're different mechanisms. Teaching modifies the learner. Prompting doesn't modify the model. It provides additional context that influences a single inference. A person who has learned something can apply it years later without being reminded. An LLM generally cannot unless the knowledge is incorporated into the model itself or provided again.

Right, but "provided again" is what SKILL.md or whatever else are for.

The value of LLMs is that they're stateless. With sufficiently detailed documentation and a well-bounded task, they are quite useful.

Re: GPT-5.6 Sol Ultra will be in Codex

#394

Post by whstl »

RazorBucksICO wrote: post #380
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.

“Asshole non-technical people” You mean the people creating actual business value in every industry where software isn’t the product? Speak not unless spoken to, Mr. cost-center!

Without the "some" qualifier my quote totally loses meaning.

In the same message you managed to twist my words, lack reading comprehension, jump to conclusions and do a personal attack.

Since you're new here, I recommend reading this: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html , especially this part: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."

Re: GPT-5.6 Sol Ultra will be in Codex

#397

Post by sscaryterry »

cyanydeez wrote: post #285
sscaryterry wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can argue that by applying multiple stochastic processes, with a human in the loop , that you will (may) converge on something that is deterministic. You use tests/test vectors to prove this. We're no different to AI. The code we write to solve a particular problem can (and probably does) change from day to day, depending on your "mood", what you had for breakfast, if you've been fighting with your significant othe…

the humans only there to take the blame. you arn't not goingto be a cyborg, nor is your idea of determinism ever going to last the cycle of the agents, no matter how many memorrry layers, skills and other context guardrails you place. You're there for blame, not much else. The systems are still going to churn garbage, but because it's a business, that business will rather pay less for garbage they can sell than pay y…

I agree that we as humans are there to be held accountable. I can foresee a future where the "tech" guys will be blamed, whether or not those people are the software developers/engineers/programmers or the tech bros in Silicon Valley.

Converging on a solution via an LLM is possible. The code, well, it wouldn't necessarily be the way a human would write it, better or not...

Re: GPT-5.6 Sol Ultra will be in Codex

#398

Post by nolok »

fny wrote: post #348
d4rkp4ttern wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> single line addition to prompt to use subagents proactively. This misses an important detail. In Claude Code [1], ultracode suggests the agent create a JavaScript code to deterministically orchestrate sub agents. This is different from just having the main agent launch sub agents and (non-deterministically) manage them. The resulting workflow is called “dynamic” because CC creates this orchestration script dynamica…

Can you explain what you find useful about ultracode? I've become wary of agent swarms since the early days and now just prefer to have a single agent spin for hours at time. Parallelism never got me anywhere worthwhile.

Not parent but I find them great for analysis amongst other, to have each agent handle only its parts and bring back any issue even if it's clarified in other parts because that specific agent doesn't know about that, and the orchestrator is then on charge of handling that and making sure things are clarified in each parts that needs it without depending on side effect or side knowledge.

Same with code really but on a lower level, I find X agents working in concert on small task each and the orchestrator making sure of the overall coherence is better, focused better is usually a lot better.

I just wish Claude Code would give us more control over what kind of agent (in many case it would be great to have say Opus handle a bunch of Haiku agents but unless I'm blind you can't be decide what agent is what and you get all counted as opus anyway).

Re: GPT-5.6 Sol Ultra will be in Codex

#399

Post by klibertp »

skydhash wrote: post #254
barrkel wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't put them on the same level. At the same time, one should acknowledge that not all tasks are on the same level.

Most tasks we use computers for are deterministic and was coded for that specific quality. Introducing nom deterministic behavior is lowering the value of the app, especially for power users.

I don't think this is true. Computers are still computers, and code executes (mostly) deterministically. What computers struggle with is making sense of unclear inputs, precisely because of their determinism. OCR, speech-to-text, and computer vision all proved extremely limited when tackled purely deterministically. The whole "ML revolution" before LLMs was about recognizing that messy, noisy data can be interpreted with some accuracy using statistical methods. LLMs are the continuation of that: they are even harder to measure and completely impossible to prove, but they bring capabilities we have been unable to achieve any other way for decades. Should they be used to handle deterministic logic? No, obviously not - but they do enable computer systems to start working in contexts where they either couldn't at all before, or were just bad at them.

Re: GPT-5.6 Sol Ultra will be in Codex

#400

Post by estearum »

alightsoul wrote: post #388
estearum wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh yeah that's a good point. In that case, this Chinese hedge fund is choosing to sink billions of dollars in R&D alongside vast opportunity cost in order to create models and release them for free because umm... they're just that nice! No wonder you're confused about DeepSeek when you have a fairly obvious explanation provided to you, and your response is "it's unrealistic to think the Chinese Communist Party is beh…

so you can't believe a private enterprise in a non democratic country can be capitalist. surely there must be state involvement because they aren't democratic and it's open weights which is definetely not just a marketing tactic because you definetely can run it on a desktop. companies like alibaba have 1 model initiative spread across several fields. so basically China for some unexplainable reason has duplicate mod…

It has nothing to do with democracy and I don't know why you keep injecting that. There's state involvement because it's a communist country. You should let the CCP know that their government is uninvolved and lacks effective control over the top AI labs in their country. They would be very surprised to hear this and they may reward you for your valuable information.

> to you, it's plainly obvious that a non american, non-european company engaging in open source and releasing research means they are state owned and seek to destroy the US when this line of thinking is exactly the result of the red scare.

No, that's not really my argument. You should stop raising strawmen.

Post reply on HN