Interesting that this was released without a prior GPT-5.3 release. I wonder if that means we won't see a GPT-5.3?
GPT-5.3-Codex
231–240 of 634 posts
Re: GPT-5.3-Codex
#232Re: GPT-5.3-Codex
#233Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then I pass the review back to Claude Opus to implement it.
Just curious is this a manual process or you guys have automated these steps?
I have a `codex-review` skill with a shell script that uses the Codex CLI with a prompt. It tells Claude to use Codex as a review partner and to push back if it disagrees. They will go through 3 or 4 back-and-forth iterations some times before they find consensus. It's not perfect, but it does help because Claude will point out the things Codex found and give it credit.
Re: GPT-5.3-Codex
#234Earlier 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.
Yeah, these benchmarks are bogus. Every new model overfits to the latest overhyped benchmark. Someone should take this to a logical extreme and train a tiny model that scores better on a specific benchmark.
This has been done: https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.04871v1
Re: GPT-5.3-Codex
#235I'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?
> that hasn't been solved before a bunch of times in publicly available code?
And this matters because? Most devs are not working on novel never before seen problems.
Re: GPT-5.3-Codex
#236Earlier 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.
Yeah, these benchmarks are bogus. Every new model overfits to the latest overhyped benchmark. Someone should take this to a logical extreme and train a tiny model that scores better on a specific benchmark.
All shared machine learning benchmarks are a little bit bogus, for a really “machine learning 101” reason: your test set only yields an unbiased performance metric if you agree to only use it once. But that just isn’t a realistic way to use a shared benchmark. Using them repeatedly is kind of the whole point.
But even an imperfect yardstick is better than no yardstick at all. You’ve just got to remember to maintain a healthy level of skepticism is all.
Re: GPT-5.3-Codex
#237Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
I've also had the exact opposite experience with tone. Claude Code wants to build with me, and Codex wants to go off on its own for a while before returning with opinions.
Its likely that both are steering towards the middle from their current relative extremes and converging to nearly the same place.
Re: GPT-5.3-Codex
#238Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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...
I get what you mean now, I like that to be fair, sometimes I want Claude to tell me some architectural options, so I ask it so I can think about what my options are, sometimes I rethink my problem if I like Claudes conclusion.
Re: GPT-5.3-Codex
#239May AI not write the code for me. May I at least understand what it has "written". AI help is good but don't replace real programmers completely. I'm enough copy pasting code i don't understand. What if one day AI will fall down and there will be no real programmers to write the software. AI for help is good but I don't want AI to write whole files into my project. Then something may broke and I won't know what's bro…
Sorry but companies will not hire you but instead a person who learned how to code with AI. Get with the times or lose.
Re: GPT-5.3-Codex
#240I'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?
In the 1930s, when electronic calculators were first introduced, there was a widespread belief that accounting as a career was finished. Instead, the opposite became true. Accounting as a profession grew, becoming far more analytical/strategic than it had been previously. You are correct that these models primarily address problems that have already been solved. However, that has always been the case for the majority…
The story you're describing doesn't seem much better than one could get from googling around and going on stackoverflow