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

411–420 of 433 posts

Re: GPT-5.6 Sol Ultra will be in Codex

#411

Post by icepush »

HDThoreaun wrote: post #368
jvuygbbkuurx wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If the market thought AGI was imminent the labs would be worth hundreds of trillions of dollars. AGI is one step away from fully automated economy.

AGI means that eventually there is just one profitable company left; but it is not clear at this point which one it will be. Also it's worth noting that the current market capitalization for the technology industry just in the US is around a third of a hundred trillion dollars (Which would be explained by the possibility of AGI emerging from another country/continent)

Re: GPT-5.6 Sol Ultra will be in Codex

#412

Post by embedding-shape »

rowanG077 wrote: post #369
embedding-shape wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The big problem is that a person making a mistake can be taught to not make that mistake again. That's also not foolproof but at least it works a lot of the times. AI are unteachable, if you have given them a good prompt and they do something wrong 90% of the time you are shit out of luck. I feel like this line of thinking is kind of an unfair comparison. I'm not saying LLMs are magical beings that can suddenly lea…

I'm not against the prompt being changed, the point I was making is that an LLM is prone to the exact same mistakes even if you change the prompt. A trivial example is the very basic character counting mistake, I just asked chatgpt: > How many p are in strawperry? > There are 0 “p”s in strawperry. And I can trigger the same mistake with various words even when adjusting the prompt many times. So I cannot teach chatgp…

> the point I was making is that an LLM is prone to the exact same mistakes even if you change the prompt

That'd be strange, what specific models?

Your example of "changing the prompt" doesn't actually tell the model what to avoid though, you're just rephrasing the question? Again you're not doing an equal comparison for the human, because in that example I bet you'd tell the human what they messed up and how to do it better, why not include that in the prompt when you compare these two?

Re: GPT-5.6 Sol Ultra will be in Codex

#413

Post by nijave »

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 sure if it qualifies as "swarm" but they're useful for controlling context size. You can spin them off for context heavy things like research and analysis then only a much shorter summary gets passed back into the main context.

For instance, I was troubleshooting a 3rd party library issue and I spun a few off "check issue tracker for x", "check rust implementation for x", "check go implementation for x", "check Ruby implementation for x" to compare how different languages did or didn't handle http/2 for a service. They each returned a sentence or two worth of data to the main agent but consumed much more tokens in the process grepping code.

Re: GPT-5.6 Sol Ultra will be in Codex

#414

Post by whstl »

djsjajah wrote: post #401
whstl wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

I think they were making a joke. In the future, you might consider the advice you are giving as well as giving it.

If that’s the case, I will wait for their own answer.

Re: GPT-5.6 Sol Ultra will be in Codex

#415

Post by [deleted] »

embedding-shape wrote: post #412
rowanG077 wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not against the prompt being changed, the point I was making is that an LLM is prone to the exact same mistakes even if you change the prompt. A trivial example is the very basic character counting mistake, I just asked chatgpt: > How many p are in strawperry? > There are 0 “p”s in strawperry. And I can trigger the same mistake with various words even when adjusting the prompt many times. So I cannot teach chatgp…

> the point I was making is that an LLM is prone to the exact same mistakes even if you change the prompt That'd be strange, what specific models? Your example of "changing the prompt" doesn't actually tell the model what to avoid though, you're just rephrasing the question? Again you're not doing an equal comparison for the human, because in that example I bet you'd tell the human what they messed up and how to do i…

[deleted]

Re: GPT-5.6 Sol Ultra will be in Codex

#416

Post by nijave »

alightsoul wrote: post #304
schnitzelstoat wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not American so I don't really care if it's Chinese or not. But at work I can only use the approved Enterprise Plans we have and we only have those with Anthropic and OpenAI.

Companies and people worldwide just use whatever Americans use, because they read English but can't write it. Americans don't use Chinese models because they're Chinese.

And Chinese don't use American models because they're American. What's your point?

Re: GPT-5.6 Sol Ultra will be in Codex

#418

Post by carljungslabtek »

jascha_eng wrote: post #258
sebra wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least Anthropic have a max subscription for corporate. Codex is only pay-as-you-go pricing beyond the base plan. Hence I'm stuck with Opus for work for the foreseeable future.

Apparently not? At least our it guy said after 150 people or so you have to pay for enterprise which is pay per token for everyone.

This is referring to the Business plan I think (used to be called Teams or something). The problem is that there are two types of seats: normal and codex only.

Codex only gets billed at API prices. The normal seats are more like a normal subscription, but their codex limits were LESS than a $20 subscription last time I checked (it used to be the same or more but they reduced it when they introduced the codex only seats).

Re: GPT-5.6 Sol Ultra will be in Codex

#419

Post by jascha_eng »

carljungslabtek wrote: post #418
jascha_eng wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apparently not? At least our it guy said after 150 people or so you have to pay for enterprise which is pay per token for everyone.

This is referring to the Business plan I think (used to be called Teams or something). The problem is that there are two types of seats: normal and codex only. Codex only gets billed at API prices. The normal seats are more like a normal subscription, but their codex limits were LESS than a $20 subscription last time I checked (it used to be the same or more but they reduced it when they introduced the codex only sea…

im talking about anthropics pricing

Re: GPT-5.6 Sol Ultra will be in Codex

#420

Post by 1659447091 »

embedding-shape wrote: post #412
rowanG077 wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not against the prompt being changed, the point I was making is that an LLM is prone to the exact same mistakes even if you change the prompt. A trivial example is the very basic character counting mistake, I just asked chatgpt: > How many p are in strawperry? > There are 0 “p”s in strawperry. And I can trigger the same mistake with various words even when adjusting the prompt many times. So I cannot teach chatgp…

> the point I was making is that an LLM is prone to the exact same mistakes even if you change the prompt That'd be strange, what specific models? Your example of "changing the prompt" doesn't actually tell the model what to avoid though, you're just rephrasing the question? Again you're not doing an equal comparison for the human, because in that example I bet you'd tell the human what they messed up and how to do i…

> That'd be strange, what specific models?

Fable. (and other claude ones)

I have a clojure/babashka environment that I work in. My agents/claude files specifically explain this and how to work with it and what to use etc. Fable decided it didn't want to use bb/clj and ran python to do cli work in one project.

So I update the files in all projects to specify that python is strictly off limits/not to be used/never to run it/etc and created a preToolUse hook -- because I learned that just because an agents file says something doesn't mean it gets followed. Hence the hooks, fool me once ...

Later, I start work in another project with the hooks and updated files saying to use the established bb/cli tools and to absolutely never run/use python etc. What does it do on the first task? Tries to run python, gets hit with the preToolUse hook error and replies with something like -- oops my bad I tried to use python even though the instructions told me not too. Every once in awhile in new tasks I still see the hook error at some point but it doesn't apologize like it did before it just switches to proper tools after it can't run what it wants even though it's in the instructions and could have been avoided.

Post reply on HN