261–270 of 868 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Somebody on Twitter used Claude code to connect… toys… as mcps to Claude chat. We’ve seen nothing yet.
My computer ethics teacher was obsessed with 'teledildonics' 30 years ago. There's nothing new under the sun.
"GPT‑5.4 interprets screenshots of a browser interface and interacts with UI elements through coordinate-based clicking to send emails and schedule a calendar event." They show an example of 5.4 clicking around in Gmail to send an email. I still think this is the wrong interface to be interacting with the internet. Why not use Gmail APIs? No need to do any screenshot interpretation or coordinate-based clicking.
"GPT‑5.4 interprets screenshots of a browser interface and interacts with UI elements through coordinate-based clicking to send emails and schedule a calendar event." They show an example of 5.4 clicking around in Gmail to send an email. I still think this is the wrong interface to be interacting with the internet. Why not use Gmail APIs? No need to do any screenshot interpretation or coordinate-based clicking.
APIs have never been a gift but rather have always been a take-away that lets you do less than you can with the web interface. It’s always been about drinking through a straw, paying NASA prices, and being limited in everything you can do. But people are intimidated by the complexity of writing web crawlers because management has been so traumatized by the cost of making GUI applications that they couldn’t believe ho…
Plenty of companies make the same choice about their API, they provide it for a specific purpose but they have good business reasons they want you using the website. Plenty of people write webcrawlers and it's been a cat and mouse game for decades for websites to block them.
This will just be one more step in that cat and mouse game, and if the AI really gets good enough to become a complete intermediary between you and the website? The website will just shutdown. We saw it happen before with the open web. These websites aren't here for some heroic purpose, if you screw their business model they will just go out of business. You won't be able to use their website because it won't exist and the website that do exist will either (a) be made by the same guys writing your agent, and (b) be highly highly optimized to get your agent to screw you.
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
Switch between Claude models. Applies to this session and future Claude Code sessions. For other/previous model names, specify with --model.
1. Default (recommended) Opus 4.6 · Most capable for complex work
2. Opus (1M context) Opus 4.6 with 1M context · Billed as extra usage · $10/$37.50 per Mtok
3. Sonnet Sonnet 4.6 · Best for everyday tasks
4. Sonnet (1M context) Sonnet 4.6 with 1M context · Billed as extra usage · $6/$22.50 per Mtok
5. Haiku Haiku 4.5 · Fastest for quick answersEarlier quoted context omitted.
It seems that all frontier models are basically roughly even at this point. One may be slightly better for certain things but in general I think we are approaching a real level playing field field in terms of ability.
Benchmarks don't capture a lot - relative response times, vibes, what unmeasured capabilities are jagged and which are smooth, etc. I find there's a lot of difference between models - there are things which Grok is better than ChatGPT for that the benchmarks get inverted, and vice versa. There's also the UI and tools at hand - ChatGPT image gen is just straight up better, but Grok Imagine does better videos, and is f…
Yet so much slower than Gemini / Nano Banana to make it almost unusable for anything iterative.
numerusformassistant to=functions.ReadFile մեկնաբանություն 天天爱彩票网站json {"path":
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
That's an interesting point regarding context Vs. compaction. If that's viewed as the best strategy, I'd hope we would see more tools around compaction than just "I'll compact what I want, brace yourselves" without warning. Like, I'd love an optional pre-compaction step, "I need to compact, here is a high level list of my context + size, what should I junk?" Or similar.
The agent could pre-select what it thinks is worth keeping, but you’d still have full control to override it. Each chunk could have three states: drop it, keep a summarized version, or keep the full history.
That way you stay in control of both the context budget and the level of detail the agent operates with.
"GPT‑5.4 interprets screenshots of a browser interface and interacts with UI elements through coordinate-based clicking to send emails and schedule a calendar event." They show an example of 5.4 clicking around in Gmail to send an email. I still think this is the wrong interface to be interacting with the internet. Why not use Gmail APIs? No need to do any screenshot interpretation or coordinate-based clicking.