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

191–200 of 634 posts

Re: GPT-5.3-Codex

#191

Post by bgirard »

veb wrote: post #178
bgirard wrote: post #170

> Using the develop web game skill and preselected, generic follow-up prompts like "fix the bug" or "improve the game", GPT‑5.3-Codex iterated on the games autonomously over millions of tokens. I wish they would share the full conversation, token counts and more. I'd like to have a better sense of how they normalize these comparisons across version. Is this a 3-prompt 10m token game? a 30-prompt 100m token game? Are…

I just wanted to say that's a pretty cool demo! I hadn't realised people were using it for things like this.

Thank you. There's a demo save to get the full feel of it quickly. There's also a 2D-ASCII and 3D render you can hotswap between. The 3D models are generated with Meshy. The entire game is 'AI slop'. I intentionally did no code reviews to see where that would get me. Some prompts were very specific but other prompts were just 'add a research of your choice'.

This was built using old versions of Codex, Gemini and Claude. I'll probably work on it more soon to try the latest models.

Re: GPT-5.3-Codex

#192

Post by aerhardt »

bg24 wrote: post #129

I am on a max subscription for Claude, and hate the fact that OpenAI have not figured out that $20 => $200 is a big jump. Good luck to them. In terms of model, just last night, Codex 5.2 solved a problem for me which other models were going round and round. Almost same instructions. That said, I still plan to be on $100 Claude (overall value across many tasks, ability to create docs, co-work), and may bump up OpenAI…

I'm coding about 6-9h per day with Codex CLI on the $20 Plus sub, occasionally switching to extra-high reasoning and feeding it massive contexts, all tools enabled, sometimes 2-3 terminal sessions running in parallel and I've never hit limits... I operate on small-ish codebases but even so I try to work in the most local scope possible with AGENTS.md at the sub-directory levels.

Are you really hitting limits, or are you turned off by the fact you think you will?

Re: GPT-5.3-Codex

#193

Post by andrepd »

locknitpicker wrote: post #112
wasmainiac wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> All anonymous as well. Who are making these claims? script kiddies? sr devs? Altman? You can take off your tinfoil hat. The same models can perform differently depending on the programming language, frameworks and libraries employed, and even project. Also, context does matter, and a model's output greatly varies depending on your prompt history.

It's hardly tinfoil to understand that companies riding a multi-trillion dollar funding wave would spend a few pennies astroturfing their shit on hn. Or overfit to benchmarks that people take as objective measurements.

Re: GPT-5.3-Codex

#194

Post by wiether »

bg24 wrote: post #129

I am on a max subscription for Claude, and hate the fact that OpenAI have not figured out that $20 => $200 is a big jump. Good luck to them. In terms of model, just last night, Codex 5.2 solved a problem for me which other models were going round and round. Almost same instructions. That said, I still plan to be on $100 Claude (overall value across many tasks, ability to create docs, co-work), and may bump up OpenAI…

I use Codex in OpenCode through the API and find the experience quite enjoyable.

Re: GPT-5.3-Codex

#195

Post by koakuma-chan »

wahnfrieden wrote: post #186
koakuma-chan wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

OpenAI, in addition to JSON schema, supports "context-free grammar"[0], i.e. regex and lark. Anthropic also supports JSON schema since a few weeks ago, but they don't support specifying the length of JSON array, so you still have to worry about the model producing invalid output.

[0]: https://platform.openai.com/docs/guides/function-calling#con...

One thing that pisses me off is this widespread misunderstanding that you can just fall back to function calling (Anthropic's function calling accepts JSON schema for arguments), and that it's the same as structured outputs. It is not. They just dump the JSON schema into the context without doing the actual structured outputs. Vercel's AI SDK does that and it pisses me off because doing that only confuses the model and prefilling works much better.

Re: GPT-5.3-Codex

#196

Post by Computer0 »

leumon wrote: post #134
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.

they tested it at xhigh reasoning though, which is probably double the cost of Anthropic's model. Cost to Run Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index: GPT-5.2 Codex (xhigh): $3244 Claude Opus 4.5-reasoning: $1485 (and probably similar values for the newer models?)

A provider's API costs seemingly do not reflect each respective SOTA provider's subscription usage allowances.

Re: GPT-5.3-Codex

#197

Post by cedws »

thethimble wrote: post #125
cedws wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As long as China continues to blitz forward, regulation is a direct path to losing.

Define "losing."

Europe is prematurely regarded as having lost the AI race. And yet a large portion of Europe live higher quality lives compared to their American counterparts, live longer, and don't have to worry about an elected orange unleashing brutality on them.

Re: GPT-5.3-Codex

#198

Post by karmasimida »

Rperry2174 wrote: post #188

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 deepl…

> 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.

Ain't the UX is the exact opposite? Codex thinks much longer before gives you back the answer.

Re: GPT-5.3-Codex

#199

Post by xandrius »

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?

Why even come to this site if you're so anti-innovation?

Today with LLMs you can literally spend 5 minutes defining what you want to get, press send, go grab a coffee and come back to a working POC of something, in literally any programming language.

This is literally stuff of wonders and magic that redefines how we interface with computers and code. And the only thing you can think of is to ask if it can do something completely novel (that it's so hard to even quantity for humans that we don't have software patents mainly for that reason).

And the same model can also answer you if you ask it about maths, making you an itinerary or a recipe for lasagnas. C'mon now.

Re: GPT-5.3-Codex

#200

Post by stri8ted »

aurareturn wrote: post #72
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.

Because Claude Code is stealing the thunder so OpenAI is focusing on coding now.

That is where the money is.
Post reply on HN