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

851–860 of 1001 posts

Re: GPT-5.6

#851

Post by exceptione »

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…

  > 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.
I guess this has been achieved by training on user's chat history?

Re: GPT-5.6

#852

Post by beefsack »

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…

I'd say Codex and Claude Code have different strengths and weaknesses. Claude Code is significantly better in terms of their subagent UI for example - being able to see the list of subagents under the input is great.

To be honest though, I've gotten to the point where I prefer the OpenCode UI. A big win for OpenAI is you can log in to your subscription in OpenCode, whereas this is not trivially achievable for a Claude subscription.

I was getting some really impressive cost efficiency today in OpenCode with the following:

  * Main session agent: gpt-5.6-sol (high) via OpenAI subscription
  * General purpose subagent: deepseek-v4-pro (high) via OpenCode Go subscription
  * Using `obra/superpowers` for subagent driven workflows
  * The main session only being allowed filesystem read permissions and everything else delegated
It was absolutely crunching through tasks without hitting the limit, and this combination is quite cost effective.

GPT 5.6 was picking up on quality and functional issues from DeepSeek and having it resolve them cleanly, and I didn't even get close to my quotas whereas I can usually blast through them. I feel as people get more comfortable with subagents and mixing and matching models in their daily work, Anthropic's walled garden stance will start to hurt them.

Re: GPT-5.6

#853

Post by ld4nt3 »

hyperbovine wrote: post #749
10xDev wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Or a new model. The human brain does far more with far less.

Yes an no current models can read and output much more faster with differing quality tho.

Re: GPT-5.6

#854

Post by epolanski »

I'm using luna (the smallest), at low thinking in my 9-to-5 job and I'm quite happy. No groundbreaking tasks so far, but typical small jira issues and fixes are done in a matter of low minutes. Very fast loops have their pros.

Fable or Opus would wander and wander.

Re: GPT-5.6

#855

Post by 698969 »

simianwords wrote: post #517

GPT Terra is 50% cheaper than 5.5 while being more performant. So it’s like a straight up 50% reduction in cost! That leads me to a question. Why wouldn’t they just default to terra in ChatGPT in the last few months? If they didn’t then they burnt money for no reason by giving a shittier model at a higher price

50% reduction in cost charged to customers, inference cost may as well be the same, we don't know.

Re: GPT-5.6

#856

Post by nullbio »

swatcoder wrote: post #336
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…

> can better infer the user’s underlying goal and intended level of work This is a trap. It's the optimistic fallacy that poisons all "consumer scale" machine learning products and what's going to effectively ruin these models as they keep chasing it in the same way that web queries were ruined, social media feeds were ruined, and media recommenders were ruined. For the vendor, optimizing metrics across their whole u…

I want my model to help me build up its own infrastructure that instills it with the sort of constraints I want for my project, rather than have it behave generically and automatically for everything.

It should follow instructions incredibly well while inferring contradictions or gaps in logic and surfacing those to the user as suggestions for improvements and persistence.

I really hate how Claude just assumes you want to do X/Y/Z and goes off and breaks everything and you're constantly screaming at it STOP DOING THAT. Instead, it should just do the minimal things while building its own guidance along the way in a persisted memory, like, 'would you like me to do X, now, and in the future?' etc.

Re: GPT-5.6

#857

Post by nullbio »

loufe wrote: post #561
swatcoder wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> can better infer the user’s underlying goal and intended level of work This is a trap. It's the optimistic fallacy that poisons all "consumer scale" machine learning products and what's going to effectively ruin these models as they keep chasing it in the same way that web queries were ruined, social media feeds were ruined, and media recommenders were ruined. For the vendor, optimizing metrics across their whole u…

I agree to an extent but it needs to be balanced. Receiving a half-baked, extremely verbose recap of thinking on benign details with Opus 4.8 or GPT 5.5 feels like an extraordinary loss of quality of experience compared with fable 5. Yes it shares less, but I think the trade-off is you pay less in tokens and hopefully it's truly just not needing to say things because it truly does just better get what you're saying,…

[dead]

Re: GPT-5.6

#858

Post by user43928 »

DetroitThrow wrote: post #700
gorgmah wrote: post #518

Anyone else noticed the "Extended: Fable 5 is included in your weekly limit through July 12 blablabla" disappeared from claude code? Did they panic-delete the july 12th deadline ?

Looks like they reset everyone's Fable usage.

They did. I wonder if Anthropic will also be removing the 50% limit.

My Fable weekly limit is at 15% used already, 5.6 Sol at 3% used. And this is with the Max 20x plan compared to Codex 5x.

I don't work on the same tasks to compare them objectively, but GPT 5.6 on xhigh seems much cheaper. Essentially unlimited usage.

Re: GPT-5.6

#859

Post by gorgmah »

ekzy wrote: post #686

Just my two cents. I'm on the Plus plan, I ask gpt-5.6 sol / high to analyze a vibe-coded codebase (~50k LoC) and write a plan to make it production ready. It wasn't a great prompt, I just wanted to test it quickly. It ran for ~15min and consumed 95% of my 5h quota (I thought it was gonna crash). The output is excellent but just a heads up that it consumes a lot of quota!

Yes had the same experience, Sol consumes limits quite fast
Post reply on HN