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

381–390 of 1001 posts

Re: GPT-5.6

#381

Post by vamsiraju »

saberience wrote: post #13

"On Agents’ Last Exam (opens in a new window), an evaluation of long-running professional workflows across 55 fields, GPT‑5.6 Sol sets a new high of 53.6, eclipsing Claude Fable 5 (adaptive reasoning) by 13.1 points. Even at medium reasoning, it beats Fable 5 by 11.4 points at roughly one-quarter the estimated cost. That efficiency extends to smaller models, which are essential to making intelligence more abundant an…

I think this is the phase shift 5.6 (Sol set to Ultra) is bringing to the table. Until now we have become accustomed to asking models to continue and their natural inclination is always to stop. Now OpenAI have flipped it around and for the first time are asking us to steer or stop the model instead, and its own inclination is to keep going. We now have to decide when we need to steer or want to catch up on our understanding of the work done but it will keep going.

Re: GPT-5.6

#382

Post by isityettime »

Romario77 wrote: post #307
anticorporate wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like the way brevity instructions have changed is mis-aligned with how most people would expect to use them or are currently using them. Here's the example they give: > Instead of asking for the shortest possible answer, replace brevity instructions with prioritization: > Lead with the conclusion. Include the evidence needed to support it, any material caveat, and the next action. Omit secondary detail and r…

I think instead of "be concise" you could tell it how long the answer should be. I.e. give the answer in one paragraph. Or in 10 lines max. At least before it would listen to instructions like this.

> At least before it would listen to instructions like this.

Would it actually follow them? IME LLMs are incapable of estimating the length of their own output, the total length of the current context, etc. They just make stuff up unless they have external tools that can inspect those things for them.

Re: GPT-5.6

#383

Post by netcraft »

xur17 wrote: post #369

Looks like I have access to gpt-5.6-terra and luna. How does one decide between gpt-5.5 and gpt-5.6-terra? Pricing is similar, but it's hard to tell if it's better..

this is exactly my question. I would expect that luna is analogous to mini before, but is terra equivalent/better than 5.5 and Sol is a step above? or is terra nerfed and 5.5 is analogous to sol?

Re: GPT-5.6

#385

Post by cmrdporcupine »

revolvingthrow wrote: post #376

Benchmarks look really promising. Suspiciously good, even. I guess we’ll see soon enough. My question to previewers: how are the guardrails for random joe that wasn’t personally blessed by the ai pope to access the non-nerfed model? Fable is a nightmare in this regard, but I’m not sure whether 5.6 also gets a critical side-eye from the gubmint when you ask it to fix bugs in your code (you filthy hacker, you).

I almost immediately ran into "This request requires additional safety checks, which can take extra time. Hang tight or retry with a faster model for a quicker response, though it may be less capable of handling complex requests."

Which is something I've never seen with codex before, and I wasn't doing anything funky. Just writing CUDA kernels and benchmarks for them.

Re: GPT-5.6

#386

Post by apitman »

philip1209 wrote: post #102

Will this run on Cerebas? I'm really looking forward to that.

This is the part I'm most excited about with the new release, though I'm concerned plebs like me may never get a chance to play with it

Re: GPT-5.6

#387

Post by itvision »

Weirdly, normally new ChatGPT releases are head and shoulders above anything else, but according to OpenAI's own evaluation, Anthropic's Mythos outperforms ChatGPT in quite a few benchmarks: https://openai.com/index/gpt-5-6/.

ChatGPT 6 must be deep in the pipeline and will be released within the next few months. Maybe that's why this release is versioned 5.6, not 6.0.

Re: GPT-5.6

#388

Post by guybedo »

It's good to see labs taking into account the cost/task.

Grok 4.5 is interesting because it's smart enough at great price. It seems gpt 5.6 is right there with great efficiency and great pricing.

Working with Fable has been a great experience, but at the end of the day, if you can get only 10% of your work done because it just burns through tokens, that's not that interesting.

I've been mostly using Opus and Fable high for planning and codex 5.5 medium for implementations. Claude is also the only model i can use for design tasks. If gpt 5.6 can finally deliver on the design side, it might be time to ditch the Claude sub and go full Gpt.

Re: GPT-5.6

#389

Post by bob1029 »

I am seeing some bugginess in testing:

  Parameter: reasoning_effort
  
  Function tools with reasoning_effort are not supported for gpt-5.6-sol in /v1/chat/completions. 
  To use function tools, use /v1/responses or set reasoning_effort to 'none'.'
Official OAI .NET library. Even when I override the currently experimental [?] flag to 'none', it will still occasionally throw this error (about 5% of the time).

I hope we aren't trying to push customers off the chat completion endpoint... Responses endpoint looks great on paper, but the business wants more visibility and control over the reasoning process than this product currently offers.

Edit: This is broken in my VS copilot setup too.

Re: GPT-5.6

#390

Post by siva7 »

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?

Have been long time clauder but honestly codex feels much more liberating. Something you can't buy..
Post reply on HN