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

GPT-6 Astra

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 1001 posts

Re: GPT-6 Astra

#331

Post by udbhavs »

redox99 wrote: post #325
udbhavs wrote: post #242

I remember when GPT-4 came out and the perceived performance upgrade seemed underwhelming for a major release compared to 3.5, especially how there were graphics going around showing the parameter size dwarfing the last model before it came out. It looked like we were past the perceivable differences from release to release that were immediately identifiable. Now the jump between 5 to 5.5 and 5.6 alone has changed ho…

The jump from 3.5 to 4 felt gigantic to me back then. GPT 5.0 did feel underwhelming though.

Oops, I might have been misremembering then. Maybe I meant 4 to 5

Re: GPT-6 Astra

#332

Post by kzrdude »

Cu3PO42 wrote: post #58

Just two days ago, a preprint by Julia Stadlmann went up on arXiv [0] improving the prime gap from 246 to 240. Now OpenAI announces Astra has shown a gap of 186 [1]. That must really blow. [0] https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.31126 [1] https://cdn.openai.com/pdf/51126fac-1b68-4128-9666-c908bcc16...

Ok, so the rumour was exactly true: there was a withheld prime gaps improvement, that "an AI company" was holding onto until release of a model.

Re: GPT-6 Astra

#333

Post by dominotw »

jdprgm wrote: post #320

Is anyone else just exhausted by the pace of all this. The models change constantly and relentlessly and so does the pricing, basically weekly at this point between all the labs. It feels nearly impossible to have any rigorous approach when choosing a particular model and price point for a task and more like blindly picking one. The time period needed to actually get familiar with various models to a degree you can i…

maybe thats why opnrouter sold big

Re: GPT-6 Astra

#334

Post by rcr-anti »

The benchmarks reported by Artificial Analysis are really weird in context of the ARC-AGI 3 scores and 'not not AGI' statements. It's an outright regression on the AA Agent composite vs GPT 5.6 Sol while a fraction of a point better on the full composite index. Could be the case it's just not showing up in benchmarks, for a good while Anthropic persistently trailed in benchmarks but had people swearing by it.

Re: GPT-6 Astra

#335

Post by simianwords »

intenex wrote: post #274

The ARC-AGI-3 scorecard is extremely misleading given that it clearly states itself that "with [the responses API] harness, we estimate Sol would score in the ballpark of ~30%." but it shows a score of 7.8% for GPT-5.6 Sol presumably since if they updated the percentage for GPT-5.6 Sol to the score it would receive with the responses API harness they used for GPT-6 Astra they'd have to do the same for the percentage…

> where I am reasonably confident that there's essentially nothing that I am better than Fable

No. Humans are still better at super long context learning. Once that is beat you are completely correct.

Re: GPT-6 Astra

#336

Post by uludag »

intenex wrote: post #274

The ARC-AGI-3 scorecard is extremely misleading given that it clearly states itself that "with [the responses API] harness, we estimate Sol would score in the ballpark of ~30%." but it shows a score of 7.8% for GPT-5.6 Sol presumably since if they updated the percentage for GPT-5.6 Sol to the score it would receive with the responses API harness they used for GPT-6 Astra they'd have to do the same for the percentage…

Wouldn't "general intelligence" require so much more than scoring well (or even amazingly) on benchmarks?

Like what about having some "AGI model" embodied in something (maybe humanoid), and test it by having it step in an assortment of cars and park them. Does bodily-kinesthetic intelligence account for nothing? Humans are intelligent creatures and can dynamically adapt to the physical shape of a variety of vehicles and their movement characteristics. And there's so many things like this that are extremely basic, which some people dismiss since practically every human has the capability to do it, but actually requires a high degree of intelligence.

Re: GPT-6 Astra

#338

Post by sbinnee »

I dropped my claude subscription a few months ago, though I kept some credits to do this and that with claude, thinking that claude might do better for some tasks. A few days ago they were all expired. It feels like it’s time to let claude go.

Re: GPT-6 Astra

#339

Post by cyanydeez »

mullingitover wrote: post #276
abixb wrote: post #249

I want to take a step back: So, this is GPT-6 -- the natural number version release comparable to GPT-4 and GPT-5 from the past few years. The ARC-AGI-3 score is obviously impressive at 99.9% (we'll need to wait for more details on how they used the response API harness on GPT-6 Astra, wrt reasoning retention and compaction), but every other benchmarks seems to be a relatively modest improvement, comparable with any…

> If this is truly AGI (subject to one's definition of AGI still), then this is a very boring release of an AGI model. Hot take: These models are never going to be 'AGI'. We're just going from a GPT4 ball that's 90% round to a GPT5 that's 99% round to a GPT6 that's 99.9% etc etc etc I think that the harnesses and context management is really where the rubber meets the road, and the real gains are happening there.

We call that a sigmoid.

Re: GPT-6 Astra

#340

Post by user43928 »

mullingitover wrote: post #276
abixb wrote: post #249

I want to take a step back: So, this is GPT-6 -- the natural number version release comparable to GPT-4 and GPT-5 from the past few years. The ARC-AGI-3 score is obviously impressive at 99.9% (we'll need to wait for more details on how they used the response API harness on GPT-6 Astra, wrt reasoning retention and compaction), but every other benchmarks seems to be a relatively modest improvement, comparable with any…

> If this is truly AGI (subject to one's definition of AGI still), then this is a very boring release of an AGI model. Hot take: These models are never going to be 'AGI'. We're just going from a GPT4 ball that's 90% round to a GPT5 that's 99% round to a GPT6 that's 99.9% etc etc etc I think that the harnesses and context management is really where the rubber meets the road, and the real gains are happening there.

I don't think so.

One could use gpt-4 or gpt-5 with today's harnesses and we'd see how well that goes.

Post reply on HN