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

281–290 of 634 posts

Re: GPT-5.3-Codex

#281

Post by ajam1507 »

manquer wrote: post #91
observationist wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The labs have fully embraced the cutthroat competition, the arms race has fully shed the civilized facade of beneficient mutual cooperation. Dirty tricks and underhanded tactics will happen - I think Demis isn't savvy in this domain, but might end up stomping out the competition on pure performance. Elon, Sam, and Dario know how to fight ugly and do the nasty political boardroom crap. 26 is gonna be a very dramatic y…

>civilized facade of mutual cooperation >Dirty tricks and underhanded tactics As long the tactics are legal ( i.e. not corporate espionage, bribes etc), the no holds barred full free market competition is the best thing for the market and the consumers.

> As long the tactics are legal ( i.e. not corporate espionage, bribes etc), the no holds barred full free market competition is the best thing for the market and the consumers.

The implicit assumption here is that we have constructed our laws so skillfully that the only path to win a free market competition is by producing a better product, or that all efforts will be spent doing so. This is never the case. It should be self-evident from this that there is a more productive way for companies to compete and our laws are not sufficient to create the conditions.

Re: GPT-5.3-Codex

#282

Post by mrcwinn »

According to Sam Altman, Anthropic is for "rich people." Judging by his $4 million man-baby Koeniggsegg, he must be a huge Claude Code user!

Re: GPT-5.3-Codex

#283

Post by WilcoKruijer »

karmasimida wrote: post #198
Rperry2174 wrote: post #188

Whats interesting to me is that these gpt-5.3 and opus-4.6 are diverging philosophically and really in the same way that actual engineers and orgs have diverged philosophically 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 deepl…

> 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.

Yes, you’re right for 4.5 and 5.2. Hence they’re focusing on improving the opposite thing and thus are actually converging.

Re: GPT-5.3-Codex

#285

Post by kevstev »

rohit89 wrote: post #235
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?

> 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.

Heh, I agree. There is a vast ocean of dev work that is just "upgrade criticalLib to v2.0" or adding support for a new field from the FE through to the BE.

I can name a few times where I worked on something that you could consider groundbreaking (for some values of groundbreaking), and even that was usually more the combination of small pieces of work or existing ideas.

As maybe a more poignant example- I used to do a lot of on-campus recruiting when I worked in HFT, and I think I disappointed a lot of people when I told them my day to day was pretty mundane and consisted of banging out Jiras, usually to support new exchanges, and/or securities we hadn't traded previously. 3% excitement, 97% unit tests and covering corner cases.

Re: GPT-5.3-Codex

#287

Post by worldsavior »

RivieraKid wrote: post #284

Do software engineers here feel threatened by this? I certainly am. I'm surprised that this topic is almost entirely missing in these threads.

No. AI does not work well enough, you still need a person to look on it and CODE. It probably never will, until AGI which probably also in my opinion will never come.

Re: GPT-5.3-Codex

#289

Post by dwaltrip »

manquer wrote: post #91
observationist wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The labs have fully embraced the cutthroat competition, the arms race has fully shed the civilized facade of beneficient mutual cooperation. Dirty tricks and underhanded tactics will happen - I think Demis isn't savvy in this domain, but might end up stomping out the competition on pure performance. Elon, Sam, and Dario know how to fight ugly and do the nasty political boardroom crap. 26 is gonna be a very dramatic y…

>civilized facade of mutual cooperation >Dirty tricks and underhanded tactics As long the tactics are legal ( i.e. not corporate espionage, bribes etc), the no holds barred full free market competition is the best thing for the market and the consumers.

Sure, it can be beneficial. But don't forget that externalities are a thing.

Re: GPT-5.3-Codex

#290

Post by andyferris »

dllrr wrote: post #222

Using opus 4.6 in claude code right now. It's taking about 5x longer to think things through, if not more.

The notes explicitly call out you may want to dial the effort setting back to medium to reduce latency/tokens (high being default, apparently there is a max setting too).
Post reply on HN