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

501–510 of 1001 posts

Re: GPT-5.6

#501

Post by gorgmah »

senko wrote: post #439

I love testing the new models by asking them to code a toy RTS game. Here's what Terra did: https://senko.net/vibecode-bench/2026/rts-gpt-5.6-terra.html (one try, in codex app, xhigh effort) Comparing this to other models, I find it similar to GPT-5.5 and a bit behind Sonnet 5. You can see how other models fared here: https://senko.net/vibecode-bench/ (you can also fetch the prompt and the the 5.6 Terra resulting cod…

this is so cool: it's playable (even though super boring since there are no enemies) and you can feel that a few iterations would make it very usable.

Which model is the best at the moment, for this kind of stuff, in your experience?

Re: GPT-5.6

#502

Post by Farmadupe »

derefr wrote: post #303
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…

> Lead with conclusion. I would presume (perhaps falsely?) that an instruction like this would lead to the model presenting a conclusion not supported by the evidence, and potentially backtracking as it then tries to justify said conclusion. Yes, if deliberation happens, the model should figure out what it wants to say during that phase; but if you're using auto mode, the model is not going to be doing any deliberati…

Yes this is an extremely well known result for exactly the reason you guessed. It's not just abcktracking, asking an LLM to present a conclusion and then justify is also an excellent way to provoke hallucination as the model con concts "any justification that plausibly justifies the words it's already said".

This is the actual reason why openai _invented_ reasoning models, to give them time/space to work out a solution, rather than having to magic a correct solution out of thin air from token 1.

It's less important now that all models do reasoning, but it's still almost always better to make the output come out last rather than first.

Re: GPT-5.6

#503

Post by rsanek »

Based on the Intelligence vs. Cost graph, not clear to me why anyone would use Terra? Luna looks quite interesting though, happy to see OpenAI still serving the more budget-oriented side of the market (seems like Anthropic and Google have lost interest there).

https://artificialanalysis.ai/articles/gpt-5-6-has-landed

Re: GPT-5.6

#504

Post by phoghed »

cevn wrote: post #233
hk__2 wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d argue the opposite. I’ve switched back and forth from one to the other and Opus/Fable has been constantly better than any GPT in my daily work. It’s a bit slower but it does the things right, with as little code as possible, some comments where needed. Codex is faster but you always have to correct it because it got something wrong; it writes tons of code ("let me add a small helper") with obvious comments.

Sounds like you are talking past each other. GP is saying the harness of codex is higher quality, which I can believe, even if the models are not as good as Opus/Fable.

GPT-5.5 is as good though, at least according to my personal experience and DeepSWE

Re: GPT-5.6

#505

Post by pdantix »

ljm wrote: post #208
hk__2 wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d argue the opposite. I’ve switched back and forth from one to the other and Opus/Fable has been constantly better than any GPT in my daily work. It’s a bit slower but it does the things right, with as little code as possible, some comments where needed. Codex is faster but you always have to correct it because it got something wrong; it writes tons of code ("let me add a small helper") with obvious comments.

Purely anecdotally the one persistent issue I have with LLMs writing code is that they are absolutely paranoid and add a load of indirection and defensive crap and even if you prompt to avoid that it will often require manual steering to remove the cruft.

recent gpts are horrendous for this, whereas recent claudes have a tic where they incessantly add useless comments referring to previous changes and will use multiple single-line comments instead of a standard multi-line docblock.

Re: GPT-5.6

#506

Post by energy123 »

10xDev wrote: post #234
meetpateltech wrote: post #154

GPT-5.6 Sol sets a new SOTA on ARC-AGI-3: 7.8% Sol is the first verified frontier model to ever beat an ARC-AGI-3 game https://arcprize.org/results/openai-gpt-5-6

Seeing the dramatic differences in scores just going from high to xhigh is just another demonstration of the bitter lesson: Just keep scaling search and learning. We are probably going to need a lot more GPUs.

> Dramatic difference

Isn't this just the difference between getting 0 right and getting 1 right?

Re: GPT-5.6

#507

Post by user43928 »

HarHarVeryFunny wrote: post #467

Not specific to OpenAI / Codex, but I'm curious what people are doing to protect themselves from any destructive actions by their coding agents? Just install and pray? Explicity approve all actions? Reconfigure for safety? Run in a sandbox (Docker) ?

I use the auto-reviewer for actions outside the builtin sandbox.

So far this has been rock solid, and tens of millions of developers use this setup without issue.

It is not going to wipe our hard disks. At least I hope so. Fable and GPT 5.6 have been ever more proactive, and GPT 5.6 is automating the AppStore on my machine to download an Xcode update while I am typing this.

Re: GPT-5.6

#508

Post by dyauspitr »

nilkn wrote: post #97
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?

Codex has arguably been better than Claude Code for months now, but it's flown under the radar because it just didn't capture the same viral marketing effect and OpenAI in general has had more optics / PR issues than Anthropic amongst the online developer crowd. I use the word "better" not in the sense that the underlying GPT models are fundamentally smarter or more intelligent, but rather that as a product Codex is…

Honestly it’s the usage limits that are so generous that makes codex worth it even if it may not be exactly as powerful as Claude. The peace of mind that you can try a lot of things and make huge refactors and run extensive redundant tests without running out of tokens just makes the whole thing a much better experience. I tried coding with Deepseek and it was pretty terrible so the only reason codex works is because its abilities are close to or on par with Claude.

Re: GPT-5.6

#509

Post by ramijames »

tekacs wrote: post #498

Unfortunately, I'm finding that in long-form agentic use, when I'm trying to use Sol, I keep tripping guardrails – moreso than even Fable, somehow. I don't know exactly what part of my codebase is triggering it, so I'm going to have to keep poking, but apparently the guardrails are not that gentle despite the phrasing. :(

Sounds like you are working on something naughty :)

Re: GPT-5.6

#510

Post by clhodapp »

ravenstine wrote: post #94
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 That part is confusing because it's not like they provide an example of how default GPT-5.6 output compares with GPT-5.5 both with default output and prompted for brevity. Whenever I use such prompts, it's usually because I want the model to give me the gist in a few sentences. I'd be stunned if GPT-5.6 was that concise by default. I would think that could "break" a lot of things…

It sure is suspicious that both Anthropic (adaptive thinking) and OpenAI (Avoid generic brevity instructions) both seem to be suggesting that the best way to improve outcomes is to entirely leave it to them to decide how many tokens get used.

I mean, it's true that it would be ideal of this stuff did just get figured out optimally behind the API, but there is definitely an incentive on their side to burn more tokens.

Post reply on HN