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

271–280 of 634 posts

Re: GPT-5.3-Codex

#271

Post by superfrank »

SunshineTheCat wrote: post #255

I've always been fascinated to see significantly more people talking about using Claude than I see people talking about Codex. I know that's anecdotal, but it just seems Claude is often the default. I'm sure there are key differences in how they handle coding tasks and maybe Claude is even a little better in some areas. However, the note I see the most from Claude users is running out of usage. Coding differences asi…

I only switched to using the terminal based agents in the last week. Prior to this I was pretty much only using it through Cursor and GH Copilot. The Anthropic models when used through GH Copilot were far superior to the codex ones and I didn't really get the hype of Codex. Using them through the CLI though, Codex is much better, IMO.

My guess is that it's potentially that and just momentum from developers who started using CC when it was far superior to Codex has allowed it to become so much more popular. Potentially, it's might be that, as it's more autonomous, it's better for true vibe-coding and it's more popular with the Twitter/LinkedIn wantrepreneur crew which meant it gets a lot of publicity which increases adoption quicker.

Re: GPT-5.3-Codex

#272

Post by mrandish »

tedsanders wrote: post #161
jronak wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you look at the ARC AGI 2? Codex might be overfit for terminal bench

ARC AGI 2 has a training set that model providers can choose to train on, so really wouldn't recommend using it as a general measure of coding ability.

A key aspect of ARC AGI is to remain highly resistant to training on test problems which is essential for ARC AGI's purpose of evaluating fluid intelligence and adaptability in solving novel problems. They do release public test sets but hold back private sets. The whole idea is being a test where training on public test sets doesn't materially help.

The only valid ARC AGI results are from tests done by the ARC AGI non-profit using an unreleased private set. I believe lab-conducted ARC AGI tests must be on public sets and taken on a 'scout's honor' basis that the lab self-administered the test correctly, didn't cheat or accidentally have public ARC AGI test data slip into their training data. IIRC, some time ago there was an issue when OpenAI published ARC AGI 1 test results on a new model's release which the ARC AGI non-profit was unable to replicate on a private set some weeks later (to be fair, I don't know if these issues were resolved). Edit to Add: Summary of what happened: https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMw_66c34055-740f-43a3-a63c-4b...

I have no expertise to verify how training-resistant ARC AGI is in practice but I've read a couple of their papers and was impressed by how deeply they're thinking through these challenges. They're clearly trying to be a unique test which evaluates aspects of 'human-like' intelligence other tests don't. It's also not a specific coding test and I don't know how directly ARC AGI scores map to coding ability.

Re: GPT-5.3-Codex

#273

Post by legulere »

xandrius wrote: post #199
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 somethin…

I don't think that the user you are responding to is anti-innovation, but rather points out that the usefulness of AI is oversold.

I'm using Copilot for Visual Studio at work. It is useful for me to speed some typing up using the auto-complete. On the other hand in agentic mode it fails to follow simple basic orders, and needs hand-holding to run. This might not be the most bleeding-edge setup, but the discrepancy between how it's sold and how much it actually helps for me is very real.

Re: GPT-5.3-Codex

#275

Post by gervwyk »

mrkstu wrote: post #237
xd1936 wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

also my experience in using these two models. they are trying to recover from oversteer perhaps.

Re: GPT-5.3-Codex

#276

Post by xyst »

tosh wrote: post #76

Terminal Bench 2.0 | Name | Score | |---------------------|-------| | OpenAI Codex 5.3 | 77.3 | | Anthropic Opus 4.6 | 65.4 |

Benchmarks are useless compared to real world performance.

Real world performance for these models is a disappoint.

Re: GPT-5.3-Codex

#277

Post by argsnd »

koolala wrote: post #244

I want to recompile a Rust project to be f32 instead of f64. Am I better off buying 1 month of Codex, Claude, or Antigravity? I want to have the agent continuesly recompile and fix compile errors on loop until all the bugs from switching to f32 are gone.

All of them can do it but Codex has the least frustrating usage limits.

Re: GPT-5.3-Codex

#278

Post by strokirk »

suddenlybananas wrote: post #240
pkoiralap wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It doesn’t have to be, really. Even if it could replace 30% of documentation and SO scrounging, that’s pretty valuable. Especially since you can offload that and go take a coffee.

Re: GPT-5.3-Codex

#279

Post by codethief »

itay-maman wrote: post #102

Something that caught my eye from the announcement: > GPT‑5.3‑Codex is our first model that was instrumental in creating itself. The Codex team used early versions to debug its own training I'm happy to see the Codex team moving to this kind of dogfooding. I think this was critical for Claude Code to achieve its momentum.

Sounds like the researchers behind https://ai-2027.com/ haven't been too far off so far.

Re: GPT-5.3-Codex

#280

Post by Def_Os »

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?

Yeah, I would LOVE to see attempts at significant video games that are then open-sourced for communities to work on. E.g. OpenGTA or OpenFIFA/OpenNHL.
Post reply on HN