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

221–230 of 634 posts

Re: GPT-5.3-Codex

#221

Post by whynotminot »

dudeinhawaii wrote: post #182
wilg wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

> Solution, use both as needed!

This is the way. People are unfortunately starting to divide themselves into camps on this — it’s human nature we’re tribal - but we should try to avoid turning this into a Yankees Redsox.

Both companies are producing incredible models and I’m glad they have strengths because if you use them both where appropriate it means you have more coverage for important work.

Re: GPT-5.3-Codex

#223

Post by nubg »

nerdsniper wrote: post #160
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.

Opus 4.5 still worked better for most of my work, which is generally "weird stuff". A lot of my programming involves concepts that are a bit brain-melting for LLMs, because multiple "99% of the time, assumption X is correct" are reversed for my project. I think Opus does better at not falling into those traps. Excited to try out 5.3

what do you do?

Re: GPT-5.3-Codex

#224

Post by thethimble »

cedws wrote: post #197
thethimble wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If the world is built on AI infrastructure (models, compute, etc.) that is controlled by the CCP then the west has effectively lost.

This may lead to better life outcomes, but if the west doesn't control the whole stack then they have lost their sovereignty.

This is already playing out today as Europe is dependent on the US for critical tech infrastructure (cloud, mail, messaging, social media, AI, etc). There's no home grown European alternatives because Europe has failed to create an economic environment to assure its technical sovereignty.

Re: GPT-5.3-Codex

#225

Post by paxys »

gallerdude wrote: post #205

Both Opus 4.6 and GPT-5.3 one shot a Gameboy emulator for me. Guess I need a better benchmark.

As coding agents get "good enough" the next differentiator will be which one can complete a task in fewer tokens.

Re: GPT-5.3-Codex

#226

Post by giancarlostoro »

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 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.

This feels wrong, I can't comment on Codex, but Claude will prompt you and ask you before changing files, even when I run it in dangerous mode on Zed, I can still review all the diffs and undo them, or you know, tell it what to change. If you're worried about it making too many decisions, you can pre-prompt Claude Code (via .claude/instructions.md) and instruct it to always ask follow up questions regarding architectural decisions.

Sometimes I go out of my way to tell Claude DO NOT ASK ME FOR FOLLOW UPS JUST DO THE THING.

Re: GPT-5.3-Codex

#227

Post by forrestthewoods »

AstroBen wrote: post #165
forrestthewoods wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the end of the day “feel” is what people rely on to pick which tool they use. I’d feel unscientific and broken? Sure maybe why not. But at the end of the day I’m going to choose what I see with my own two eyes over a number in a table. Benchmarks are a sometimes useful to. But we are in prime Goodharts Law Territory.

yeah, to be honest it probably doesn't matter too much. I think the major models are very close in capabilities

I don’t think this is even remotely true in practice.

I honestly I have no idea what benchmarks are benchmarking. I don’t write JavaScript or do anything remotely webdev related.

The idea that all models have very close performance across all domains is a moderately insane take.

At any given moment the best model for my actual projects and my actual work varies.

Quite honestly Opus 4.5 is proof that benchmarks are dumb. When Opus 4.5 released no one was particularly excited. It was better with some slightly large numbers but whatever. It took about a month before everyone realized “holy shit this is a step function improvement in usefulness”. Benchmarks being +15% better on SWE bench didn’t mean a damn thing.

Re: GPT-5.3-Codex

#228

Post by ghosty141 »

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…

I'm personally 100% convinced (assuming prices stay reasonable) that the Codex approach is here to stay.

Having a human in the loop eliminates all the problems that LLMs have and continously reviewing small'ish chunks of code works really well from my experience.

It saves so much time having Codex do all the plumbing so you can focus on the actual "core" part of a feature.

LLMs still (and I doubt that changes) can't think and generalize. If I tell Codex to implement 3 features he won't stop and find a general solution that unifies them unless explicitly told to. This makes it kinda pointless for the "full autonomy" approach since effecitly code quality and abstractions completely go down the drain over time. That's fine if it's just prototyping or "throwaway" scripts but for bigger codebases where longevity matters it's a dealbreaker.

Re: GPT-5.3-Codex

#229

Post by mrandish »

thethimble wrote: post #126
manquer wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>civilized facade of mutual cooperation >Dirty tricks and underhanded tactics As long the tactics are legal ( i.e. not corporate espionage, bribes etc), the no holds barred full free market competition is the best thing for the market and the consumers.

The consumers are getting huge wins. Model costs continue to collapse while capability improves. Competition is fantastic.

> The consumers are getting huge wins.

However, the investors currently subsidizing those wins to below cost may be getting huge losses.

Re: GPT-5.3-Codex

#230

Post by Rperry2174 »

giancarlostoro wrote: post #226
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 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. This feels wrong, I can't comment on Codex, but Claude will prompt you and ask you before changing files, even when I run it in dangerous mode on Zed, I can still review all the diffs and undo them, or you know, tell it what to change. If you're worried about it maki…

yeah I'm mostly just talking about how they're framing it: "Claude Opus 4.6 is designed for longer-running, agentic work — planning complex tasks more carefully and executing them with less back-and-forth from the user"

I guess its also quite interesting that how they are framing these projects are opposite from how people currently perceive them and I guess that may be a conscious choice...

Post reply on HN