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

GPT-5.6

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 1001 posts

Re: GPT-5.6

#111

Post by giancarlostoro »

Syntaf wrote: post #6

Ok long time Claude Code user here; lately I've started to realize there's other great models out there I should be trying, but I'm hesitant to leave Claude Code behind for something new. What's the consensus today on codex vs claude code, does it really matter anymore?

Last time I tested Codex on a cheap plan, it barely lasted an hour? I think this was for the $20 plan. I was afraid to try the more expensive plan after that. Not sure, I might just outright rip my Claude Code bandaid if the current usage quotas do die off after the 17th or whatever date they said they would "return on".

Re: GPT-5.6

#113

Post by DetroitThrow »

cbg0 wrote: post #22

5.6 Terra (mid tier model) as good as Fable on DeepSWE while cheaper than Opus API pricing. Seems like a homerun.

DeepSWE seems to strongly, strongly prefer ChatGPT models. There were also major flaws in its methodology pointed out recently, that overlap strongly with the flaws OpenAI pointed out in its SWE Verified report.

I use both ChatGPT and Claude for engineering work on a daily basis, touching performance critical code to application backends to frontend work, and I've found that DeepSWE scores don't reflect my reality when I assess high quality output from the models/harnesses.

Not that Opus always beats GPT 5.5., but that 5.5 is ahead of Opus on a general benchmark smells off to me.

Re: GPT-5.6

#114

Post by postalcoder »

minimaxir wrote: post #26

The developer's guide ( https://developers.openai.com/api/docs/guides/latest-model ) has some interesting semantic tips for using the model: > Intent understanding: GPT-5.6 can better infer the user’s underlying goal and intended level of work without you specifying every step. Continue to state important constraints, approval boundaries, and success criteria explicitly. > Original image detail: GPT-5.6 preserves the…

> Avoid generic brevity instructions: GPT-5.6 is more sensitive than GPT-5.5 to instructions such as “Be concise,” “Keep it short,” or “Use minimal text.”

RIP Caveman skill. Six month good. Now skill dead.

Re: GPT-5.6

#115

Post by efficax »

217 wrote: post #72
Syntaf wrote: post #6

Ok long time Claude Code user here; lately I've started to realize there's other great models out there I should be trying, but I'm hesitant to leave Claude Code behind for something new. What's the consensus today on codex vs claude code, does it really matter anymore?

Consensus itself does NOT matter, omp is objectively the best harness for power users yet it has 0 hn posts about it, zero. You're fully free to use and try anything and without caring about what others think is right

"objectively the best"?

Re: GPT-5.6

#116

Post by browski »

Here's me using a Gemini chat log scraper (from Gdrive) then dumping my prompt+Gemini response into local AI

Never go over the free limits in Gemini Pro.

Gemini is great at research and architecture, and my 30 years experience in programming everything; for fun or work; means together there is little to no code slop.

Add to project repo some git submodules of reference source code; boom, bobs your uncle

Zero reason to sign up for OAI or Claude. With employers realizing the costs are more than employees, local models getting more powerful, and models in chips just a few years out, neither of the one note LLM companies without diversified services and R&D portfolios gonna last

Re: GPT-5.6

#117

Post by maxloh »

Syntaf wrote: post #6

Ok long time Claude Code user here; lately I've started to realize there's other great models out there I should be trying, but I'm hesitant to leave Claude Code behind for something new. What's the consensus today on codex vs claude code, does it really matter anymore?

I wish they open source their desktop app and built-in skills one day. That would be a final blow for me.

Re: GPT-5.6

#118

Post by inciampati »

eig wrote: post #38

Funny to see that they did not include Fable 5 in their GeneBench and LifeSciBench comparisons because "it does not answer advanced biology questions and refuses the majority of questions in this eval". Winner by default!

This is a major reason why I and a number of biologists I've talked to have canceled their anthropic accounts recently. Not working is not working.

Re: GPT-5.6

#119

Post by blovescoffee »

wyre wrote: post #29
Syntaf wrote: post #6

Ok long time Claude Code user here; lately I've started to realize there's other great models out there I should be trying, but I'm hesitant to leave Claude Code behind for something new. What's the consensus today on codex vs claude code, does it really matter anymore?

Claude Code is a massively bloated agent harness. Try Pi: https://pi.dev/

Pi is so “unbloated” that it’s extra effort to use. You can decide how much work to put into it. I get the trade off. But this is a big jump from CC. I’d recommend some middle ground like opencode.

Re: GPT-5.6

#120

Post by mchinen »

thurn wrote: post #87
mchinen wrote: post #68

The frontier graph on all these benchmark are extremely in favor of 5.6 Sol over Fable, more than the best model comparisons in previous iterations. I'd like to know how cherry-picked this is, and what tests it performed less overwhelmingly in, but I suppose that info is not going to be on this post. If it pans out to be as good as it says, that's great. On the other hand, if this model is not overwhelmingly impressi…

They do disclose that they scored much lower than Fable on SWEBench Pro, which is a pretty high-quality benchmark. I think it's partially just about what they choose to emphasize...

I totally missed that, because in the charts they showcase for coding, the SWEBench score is not present, they only include it at the end of the post in tables. Hmm.

Great catch.

Post reply on HN