Qwen 3.8 follows GPT-5.5 Pro reasoning prefills • Hacker News Board

Re: Qwen 3.8 follows GPT-5.5 Pro reasoning prefills

#81

Post by pixl97 » Thu, Sep 10, 2026, 2:38 AM UTC

brookst wrote: post #76

howunfortunate wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Watching survival shows has made me internalize that laziness has a purpose: it helps you avoid needless expenditure of precious resources. The dishonesty worries me but the laziness doesn't.

Isn’t all of technology just laziness writ large?

I don't think technology is laziness, it just enables it. Take that as you see fit.

As for technology actually being lazy itself, this seems new.

Re: Qwen 3.8 follows GPT-5.5 Pro reasoning prefills

#82

Post by zmmmmm » Thu, Sep 10, 2026, 3:20 AM UTC

While this result does imply there was some training on the reasoning trace and output of GPT 5.5, it doesn't tell us how much of the source of its training it was (even a small amount of post training could bump up the correlations in this way). And it doesn't tell us how much it is more a stylistic influence rather than being a genuine lifting over of intelligence.

In general, I'm fairly ambivalent about demonising training on model outputs. I think in doing so we are more defending proprietary commercial interests of these companies than we are defending any genuine moral principle. We should be careful therefore about over interpreting results like this.

Re: Qwen 3.8 follows GPT-5.5 Pro reasoning prefills

#83

Post by brookst » Thu, Sep 10, 2026, 3:46 AM UTC

pixl97 wrote: post #81

brookst wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn’t all of technology just laziness writ large?

I don't think technology is laziness, it just enables it. Take that as you see fit. As for technology actually being lazy itself, this seems new.

Sorry, I should have been more verbose. I meant: isn’t the entire history of technology just people deciding that it’s less effort to make a tool to do a job than it would be to do the job?

Re: Qwen 3.8 follows GPT-5.5 Pro reasoning prefills

#84

Post by dr_kiszonka » Thu, Sep 10, 2026, 3:53 AM UTC

Could anyone explain to me the difference between thinking traces ("intermediate tokens") and the final responses? Specifically, why is it that Claude Opus 5's reasoning in Code is very easy to follow and sounds quite natural, while its answers are full of these very annoying AI-isms and sentence fragments that are void of meaning?

Are thinking traces and final answers trained for different objectives?