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

GPT-5.4

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 868 posts

Re: GPT-5.4

#251

Post by sillysaurusx »

tedsanders wrote: post #59
minimaxir wrote: post #8

The marquee feature is obviously the 1M context window, compared to the ~200k other models support with maybe an extra cost for generations beyond >200k tokens. Per the pricing page, there is no additional cost for tokens beyond 200k: https://openai.com/api/pricing/ Also per pricing, GPT-5.4 ($2.50/M input, $15/M output) is much cheaper than Opus 4.6 ($5/M input, $25/M output) and Opus has a penalty for its beta >200…

Yeah, long context vs compaction is always an interesting tradeoff. More information isn't always better for LLMs, as each token adds distraction, cost, and latency. There's no single optimum for all use cases. For Codex, we're making 1M context experimentally available, but we're not making it the default experience for everyone, as from our testing we think that shorter context plus compaction works best for most p…

You may want to look over this thread from cperciva: https://x.com/cperciva/status/2029645027358495156

I too tried Codex and found it similarly hard to control over long contexts. It ended up coding an app that spit out millions of tiny files which were technically smaller than the original files it was supposed to optimize, except due to there being millions of them, actual hard drive usage was 18x larger. It seemed to work well until a certain point, and I suspect that point was context window overflow / compaction. Happy to provide you with the full session if it helps.

I’ll give Codex another shot with 1M. It just seemed like cperciva’s case and my own might be similar in that once the context window overflows (or refuses to fill) Codex seems to lose something essential, whereas Claude keeps it. What that thing is, I have no idea, but I’m hoping longer context will preserve it.

Re: GPT-5.4

#252

Post by pupppet »

bazmattaz wrote: post #124

Anyone else feel that it’s exhausting keeping up with the pace of new model releases. I swear every other week there’s a new release!

I think it's fun, it's like we're reliving the browser wars of the early days.

Re: GPT-5.4

#253

Post by satvikpendem »

mirekrusin wrote: post #212
satvikpendem wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's more hedonic adaptation, people just aren't as impressed by incremental changes anymore over big leaps. It's the same as another thread yesterday where someone said the new MacBook with the latest processor doesn't excite them anymore, and it's because for most people, most models are good enough and now it's all about applications. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47232453#47232735

Oh, come on, if it can't run local models that compete with proprietary ones it's not good enough yet!

Qwen 3.5 small models are actually very impressive and do beat out larger proprietary models.

Re: GPT-5.4

#254

Post by [deleted] »

ipsum2 wrote: post #111
yanis_t wrote: post #69

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.

The model was released less than an hour ago, and somehow you've been able to form such a strong opinion about it. Impressive!

[deleted]

Re: GPT-5.4

#255

Post by smoody07 »

Surprised to see every chart limited to comparisons against other OpenAI models. What does the industry comparison look like?

Re: GPT-5.4

#256

Post by jstummbillig »

Inline poll: What reasoning levels do you work with?

This becomes increasingly less clear to me, because the more interesting work will be the agent going off for 30mins+ on high / extra high (it's mostly one of the two), and that's a long time to wait and an unfeasible amount of code to a/b

Re: GPT-5.4

#257

Post by Murfalo »

realityfactchex wrote: post #177
Rapzid wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I must have been sleeping when "sheet" "brief" "primer" etc become known as "cards". I really thought weirdly worded and unnecessary "announcement" linking to the actual info along with the word "card" were the results of vibe slop.

Card is slightly odd naming indeed. Criticisms aside (sigh), according to Wikipedia, the term was introduced when proposed by mostly Googlers, with the original paper [0] submitted in 2018. To quote, """In this paper, we propose a framework that we call model cards, to encourage such transparent model reporting. Model cards are short documents accompanying trained machine learning models that provide benchmarked eval…

To me, model card makes sense for something like this https://x.com/OpenAI/status/2029620619743219811. For "sheet"/"brief"/"primer" it is indeed a bit annoying. I like to see the compiled results front and center before digging into a dossier.

Re: GPT-5.4

#258

Post by murat124 »

skrebbel wrote: post #244
theParadox42 wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The self reported safety score for violence dropped from 91% to 83%.

What the hell is a "safety score for violence"?

I asked an AI. I thought they would know.

What the hell is a "safety score for violence"?

A “safety score for violence” is usually a risk rating used by platforms, AI systems, or moderation tools to estimate how likely a piece of content is to involve or promote violence. It’s not a universal standard—different companies use their own versions—but the idea is similar everywhere.

What it measures

A safety score typically evaluates whether text, images, or videos contain things like:

Threats of violence (“I’m going to hurt someone.”) Instructions for harming people Glorifying violent acts Descriptions of physical harm or abuse Planning or encouraging attacks

Re: GPT-5.4

#259

Post by damsta »

minimaxir wrote: post #8

The marquee feature is obviously the 1M context window, compared to the ~200k other models support with maybe an extra cost for generations beyond >200k tokens. Per the pricing page, there is no additional cost for tokens beyond 200k: https://openai.com/api/pricing/ Also per pricing, GPT-5.4 ($2.50/M input, $15/M output) is much cheaper than Opus 4.6 ($5/M input, $25/M output) and Opus has a penalty for its beta >200…

There is extra cost for >272K:

> For models with a 1.05M context window (GPT-5.4 and GPT-5.4 pro), prompts with >272K input tokens are priced at 2x input and 1.5x output for the full session for standard, batch, and flex.

Taken from https://developers.openai.com/api/docs/models/gpt-5.4

Re: GPT-5.4

#260

Post by Flashtoo »

netinstructions wrote: post #207
minimaxir wrote: post #8

The marquee feature is obviously the 1M context window, compared to the ~200k other models support with maybe an extra cost for generations beyond >200k tokens. Per the pricing page, there is no additional cost for tokens beyond 200k: https://openai.com/api/pricing/ Also per pricing, GPT-5.4 ($2.50/M input, $15/M output) is much cheaper than Opus 4.6 ($5/M input, $25/M output) and Opus has a penalty for its beta >200…

People (and also frustratingly LLMs) usually refer to https://openai.com/api/pricing/ which doesn't give the complete picture. https://developers.openai.com/api/docs/pricing is what I always reference, and it explicitly shows that pricing ($2.50/M input, $15/M output) for tokens under 272k It is nice that we get 70-72k more tokens before the price goes up (also what does it cost beyond 272k tokens??)

> Prompts with more than 272K input tokens are priced at 2x input and 1.5x output for the full session for standard, batch, and flex.
Post reply on HN