111–120 of 868 posts
These releases are lacking something. Yes, they optimised for benchmarks, but it’s just not all that impressive anymore. It is time for a product, not for a marginally improved model.
If you don't want to click in, easy comparison with other 2 frontier models - https://x.com/OpenAI/status/2029620619743219811?s=20
It seems that all frontier models are basically roughly even at this point. One may be slightly better for certain things but in general I think we are approaching a real level playing field field in terms of ability.
These releases are lacking something. Yes, they optimised for benchmarks, but it’s just not all that impressive anymore. It is time for a product, not for a marginally improved model.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I haven't tried the $200 plans by I have Claude and Codex $20 and I feel like I get a lot more out of Codex before hitting the limits. My tracker certainly shows higher tokens for Codex. I've seen others say the same.
Sadly comment ratings are not visible on HN, so the only way to corroborate is to write it explicitly: Codex $20 includes significantly more work done and is subjectively smarter.
https://www.svgviewer.dev/s/gAa69yQd
Not the best pelican compared to gemini 3.1 pro, but I am sure with coding or excel does remarkably better given those are part of its measured benchmarks.
Bit concerning that we see in some cases significantly worse results when enabling thinking. Especially for Math, but also in the browser agent benchmark. Not sure if this is more concerning for the test time compute paradigm or the underlying model itself. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something though? I'm assuming 5.4 and 5.4 Thinking are the same underlying model and that's not just marketing.
Remember when everyone was predicting that GPT-5 would take over the planet?
5.4 vs 5.3-Codex? Which one is better for coding?