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

GPT-5.5

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 1001 posts

Re: GPT-5.5

#271

Post by throw310822 »

deflator wrote: post #238
postalcoder wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I made pelicans at different thinking efforts: https://hcker.news/pelican-low.svg https://hcker.news/pelican-medium.svg https://hcker.news/pelican-high.svg https://hcker.news/pelican-xhigh.svg Someone needs to make a pelican arena, I have no idea if these are considered good or not.

They are not good, and they seem to get worse as you increased effort. Weird

No but I can sense the movement, I think it's already reached the level of intelligence that draws it towards futurism or cubism /s

Re: GPT-5.5

#272

Post by seanw444 »

postalcoder wrote: post #234
simonw wrote: post #195

This doesn't have API access yet, but OpenAI seem to approve of the Codex API backdoor used by OpenClaw these days... https://twitter.com/steipete/status/2046775849769148838 and https://twitter.com/romainhuet/status/2038699202834841962 And that backdoor API has GPT-5.5. So here's a pelican: https://simonwillison.net/2026/Apr/23/gpt-5-5/#and-some-peli... I used this new plugin for LLM: https://github.com/simonw/llm-op…

I made pelicans at different thinking efforts: https://hcker.news/pelican-low.svg https://hcker.news/pelican-medium.svg https://hcker.news/pelican-high.svg https://hcker.news/pelican-xhigh.svg Someone needs to make a pelican arena, I have no idea if these are considered good or not.

Can someone explain how we arrived at the pelican test? Was there some actual theory behind why it's difficult to produce? Or did someone just think it up, discover it was consistently difficult, and now we just all know it's a good test?

Re: GPT-5.5

#273

Post by jawiggins »

What is the major and minor semver meaning for these models? Is each minor release a new fine-tuning with a new subset of example data while the major releases are made from scratch? Or do they even mean anything at this point?

Re: GPT-5.5

#274

Post by throwuxiytayq »

ulimn wrote: post #219
energy123 wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look a cost per intelligence or cost per task instead of cost per token.

Isn't the outcome / solution for a given task non-deterministic? So can we reliably measure that?

It's much easier to measure a language model's intelligence than a human's because you can take as many samples as you want without affecting its knowledge. And we do measure human intelligence.

Re: GPT-5.5

#275

Post by mikepurvis »

endymi0n wrote: post #103
tedsanders wrote: post #19

Just as a heads up, even though GPT-5.5 is releasing today, the rollout in ChatGPT and Codex will be gradual over many hours so that we can make sure service remains stable for everyone (same as our previous launches). You may not see it right away, and if you don't, try again later in the day. We usually start with Pro/Enterprise accounts and then work our way down to Plus. We know it's slightly annoying to have to…

Did you guys do anything about GPT‘s motivation? I tried to use GPT-5.4 API (at xhigh) for my OpenClaw after the Anthropic Oauthgate, but I just couldn‘t drag it to do its job. I had the most hilarious dialogues along the lines of „You stopped, X would have been next.“ - „Yeah, I‘m sorry, I failed. I should have done X next.“ - „Well, how about you just do it?“ - „Yep, I really should have done it now.“ - “Do X, righ…

Reminds me a lot of the Lena short story, about uploaded brains being used for "virtual image workloading":

> MMAcevedo's demeanour and attitude contrast starkly with those of nearly all other uploads taken of modern adult humans, most of which boot into a state of disorientation which is quickly replaced by terror and extreme panic. Standard procedures for securing the upload's cooperation such as red-washing, blue-washing, and use of the Objective Statement Protocols are unnecessary. This reduces the necessary computational load required in fast-forwarding the upload through a cooperation protocol, with the result that the MMAcevedo duty cycle is typically 99.4% on suitable workloads, a mark unmatched by all but a few other known uploads. However, MMAcevedo's innate skills and personality make it fundamentally unsuitable for many workloads.

Well worth the quick read: https://qntm.org/mmacevedo

Re: GPT-5.5

#276

Post by reactordev »

endymi0n wrote: post #103
tedsanders wrote: post #19

Just as a heads up, even though GPT-5.5 is releasing today, the rollout in ChatGPT and Codex will be gradual over many hours so that we can make sure service remains stable for everyone (same as our previous launches). You may not see it right away, and if you don't, try again later in the day. We usually start with Pro/Enterprise accounts and then work our way down to Plus. We know it's slightly annoying to have to…

Did you guys do anything about GPT‘s motivation? I tried to use GPT-5.4 API (at xhigh) for my OpenClaw after the Anthropic Oauthgate, but I just couldn‘t drag it to do its job. I had the most hilarious dialogues along the lines of „You stopped, X would have been next.“ - „Yeah, I‘m sorry, I failed. I should have done X next.“ - „Well, how about you just do it?“ - „Yep, I really should have done it now.“ - “Do X, righ…

This. I signed up for 5x max for a month to push it and instead it pushed back. I cancelled my subscription. It either half-assed the implementation or began parroting back “You’re right!” instead of doing what it’s asked to do. On one occasion it flat out said it couldn’t complete the task even though I had MCP and skills setup to help it, it still refused. Not a safety check but a “I’m unable to figure out what to do” kind of way.

Claude has no such limitations apart from their actual limits…

Re: GPT-5.5

#277

Post by lambdas »

butlike wrote: post #260
endymi0n wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you guys do anything about GPT‘s motivation? I tried to use GPT-5.4 API (at xhigh) for my OpenClaw after the Anthropic Oauthgate, but I just couldn‘t drag it to do its job. I had the most hilarious dialogues along the lines of „You stopped, X would have been next.“ - „Yeah, I‘m sorry, I failed. I should have done X next.“ - „Well, how about you just do it?“ - „Yep, I really should have done it now.“ - “Do X, righ…

This brings up an interesting philosophical point: say we get to AGI... who's to say it won't just be a super smart underachiever-type? "Hey AGI, how's that cure for cancer coming?" "Oh it's done just gotta...formalize it you know. Big rollout and all that..." I would find it divinely funny if we "got there" with AGI and it was just a complete slacker. Hard to justify leaving it on, but too important to turn it off.

Nothing a little digital lisdexamfetamine won’t solve

Re: GPT-5.5

#278

Post by dandiep »

tedsanders wrote: post #19

Just as a heads up, even though GPT-5.5 is releasing today, the rollout in ChatGPT and Codex will be gradual over many hours so that we can make sure service remains stable for everyone (same as our previous launches). You may not see it right away, and if you don't, try again later in the day. We usually start with Pro/Enterprise accounts and then work our way down to Plus. We know it's slightly annoying to have to…

Will GPT 5.5 fine tuning be released any time soon?

Re: GPT-5.5

#279

Post by ur-whale »

jfkimmes wrote: post #122

Everyone talked about the marketing stunt that was Anthropic's gated Mythos model with an 83% result on CyberGym. OpenAI just dropped GPT 5.5, which scores 82% and is open for anybody to use. I recommend anybody in offensive/defensive cybersecurity to experiment with this. This is the real data point we needed - without the hype! Never thought I'd say this but OpenAI is the 'open' option again.

> Anthropic's gated Mythos model

aka the perfect marketing ploy

Re: GPT-5.5

#280

Post by torginus »

ulimn wrote: post #219
energy123 wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look a cost per intelligence or cost per task instead of cost per token.

Isn't the outcome / solution for a given task non-deterministic? So can we reliably measure that?

This is the only correct take. The only metric that matters is cost per desired outcome.
Post reply on HN