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

GPT-5.3-Codex

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 634 posts

Re: GPT-5.3-Codex

#181

Post by beernet »

nananana9 wrote: post #173

I've been listening to the insane 100x productivity gains you all are getting with AI and "this new crazy model is a real game changer" for a few years now, I think it's about time I asked: Can you guys point me ton a single useful, majority LLM-written, preferably reliable, program that solves a non-trivial problem that hasn't been solved before a bunch of times in publicly available code?

Can you point me to a human written program an LLM cannot write? And no, just answering with a massively large codebase does not count because this issue is temporary.

Some people just hate progress.

Re: GPT-5.3-Codex

#182

Post by dudeinhawaii »

wilg wrote: post #144
granzymes wrote: post #3

I think Anthropic rushed out the release before 10am this morning to avoid having to put in comparisons to GPT-5.3-codex! The new Opus 4.6 scores 65.4 on Terminal-Bench 2.0, up from 64.7 from GPT-5.2-codex. GPT-5.3-codex scores 77.3.

In my personal experience the GPT models have always been significantly better than the Claude models for agentic coding, I’m baffled why people think Claude has the edge on programming.

I think for many/most programmers = 'speed + output' and webdev == "great coding".

Not throwing shade anyone's way. I actually do prefer Claude for webdev (even if it does cringe things like generate custom CSS on every page) -- because I hate webdev and Claude designs are always better looking.

But the meat of my code is backend and "hard" and for that Codex is always better, not even a competition. In that domain, I want accuracy and not speed.

Solution, use both as needed!

Re: GPT-5.3-Codex

#183

Post by karmasimida »

greenfish6 wrote: post #79
tosh wrote: post #76

Terminal Bench 2.0 | Name | Score | |---------------------|-------| | OpenAI Codex 5.3 | 77.3 | | Anthropic Opus 4.6 | 65.4 |

yea but i feel like we are over the hill on benchmaxxing, many times a model has beaten anthropic on a specific bench, but the 'feel' is that it is still not as good at coding

Your feeling is not my feeling, codex is unambiguously smarter model for me

Re: GPT-5.3-Codex

#184

Post by dajonker »

kingstnap wrote: post #29
uh_uh wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How so?

Its kind of a suck up that more or less confirms the beef stories that were floating around this past week. In case you missed it. For example: Nvidia's $100 billion OpenAI deal has seemingly vanished - Ars Technica https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2026/02/five-... Specifically this paragraph is what I find hilarious. > According to the report, the issue became apparent in OpenAI’s Codex, an AI code-gen…

There was never a $100 billion deal. Only a letter of intent which doesn't mean anything contractually.

Re: GPT-5.3-Codex

#185

Post by bgirard »

smith7018 wrote: post #142
Robin_f wrote: post #30

Anthropic mostly had an advantage in speed. It feels like with a 25% increase in speed with Codex 5.3, they are now losing that advantage as well.

I just asked Opus 4.6 to debug a bug in my current changes and it went for 20 minutes before I interrupted it. Take that as you will.

Doesn't feel like a useful data point without more context. For some hard bugs I'd be thrilled to wait 30 minutes for a fix, for a trivial CSS fix not so much. I've spent weeks+ of my career fix single bugs. Context is everything.

Re: GPT-5.3-Codex

#186

Post by wahnfrieden »

koakuma-chan wrote: post #100
nickthegreek wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it loser? He very well could be a sore winner here.

OpenAI is still the only AI company that has structured outputs. Anthropic now supports JSON schema but you can't specify array length.

Can you elaborate what you mean - OAI structured outputs means JSON schema doesn't it? So are you just saying they both support JSON schema but Anthropic has a limitation?

Re: GPT-5.3-Codex

#187

Post by SatvikBeri »

jahsome wrote: post #35
the_duke wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not trust the AI benchmarks much, they often do not line up with my experience. That said ... I do think Codex 5.2 was the best coding model for more complex tasks, albeit quite slow. So very much looking forward to trying out 5.3.

Another day, another hn thread of "this model changes everything" followed immediately by a reply stating "actually I have the literal opposite experience and find competitor's model is the best" repeated until it's time to start the next day's thread.

I use Claude Code every day, and I'm not certain I could tell the difference between Opus 4.5 and Opus 4.0 if you gave me a blind test

Re: GPT-5.3-Codex

#188

Post by Rperry2174 »

Whats interesting to me is that these gpt-5.3 and opus-4.6 are diverging philosophically and really in the same way that actual engineers and orgs have diverged philosophically

With Codex (5.3), the framing is an interactive collaborator: you steer it mid-execution, stay in the loop, course-correct as it works.

With Opus 4.6, the emphasis is the opposite: a more autonomous, agentic, thoughtful system that plans deeply, runs longer, and asks less of the human.

that feels like a reflection of a real split in how people think llm-based coding should work...

some want tight human-in-the-loop control and others want to delegate whole chunks of work and review the result

Interested to see if we eventually see models optimize for those two philosophies and 3rd, 4th, 5th philosophies that will emerge in the coming years.

Maybe it will be less about benchmarks and more about different ideas of what working-with-ai means

Re: GPT-5.3-Codex

#189

Post by sunaookami »

tomashubelbauer wrote: post #59
OutOfHere wrote: post #38

It is absurd to release 5.3-Codex before first releasing 5.3. Also, there is no reason for OpenAI and Anthropic to be trying to one-up each other's releases on the same day. It is hell for the reader.

I agree, I was confused about where 5.3 non Codex was. 5.2-Codex disappointed me enough that I won't be giving 5.3 Codex a try, but I'm looking forward to trying 5.3 non Codex with Pi.

GPT-5.x in general are very disappointing, the only good chat model was GPT-5 in the first week before they made "the personality warmer" and Codex in general was always kinda meh.

Re: GPT-5.3-Codex

#190

Post by vovavili »

cedws wrote: post #93
minimaxir wrote: post #2

I remember when AI labs coordinated so they didn't push major announcements on the same day to avoid cannibalizing each other. Now we have AI labs pushing major announcements within 30 minutes .

I wish they’d just stop pretending to care about safety, other than a few researchers at the top they care about safety only as long as they aren’t losing ground to the competition. Game theory guarantees the AI labs will do what it takes to ensure survival. Only regulation can enforce the limits, self policing won’t work when money is involved.

The last thing I would want is for excessively neurotic bureaucrats to interfere with all the mind-blowing progress we've had in the last couple of years with LLM technology.
Post reply on HN