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

301–310 of 1001 posts

Re: GPT-5.5

#301

Post by cynicalpeace »

theLiminator wrote: post #265
cynicalpeace wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Productivity metrics were better when businesses were run on just pen and paper. Of course, there could be many confounding factors, but there are also many reasons why this could be so. Just a few hypotheses: - Pen and paper become a limiting factor on bureaucratic BS - Pen and paper are less distracting - Pen and paper require more creative output from the user, as opposed to screens which are mostly consumptive et…

> Productivity metrics were better when businesses were run on just pen and paper What metrics are these?

Productivity growth. If you take rolling averages from this chart, it clearly demonstrate higher productivity growth before the adoption of software. This is a well established fact in econ circles.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1V79f

Re: GPT-5.5

#302

Post by squibonpig »

minimaxir wrote: post #39
amrrs wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly the problem with these is how empirical it is, how someone can reproduce this? I love when Labs go beyond traditional benchies like MMLU and friends but these kind of statements don't help much either - unless it's a proper controlled study!

In a sense it's better than a benchmark: it's a practical, real-world, highly quantifiable improvement assuming there are no quality regressions and passes all test cases. I have been experimenting with this workflow across a variety of computational domains and have achieved consistent results with both Opus and GPT. My coworkers have independently used Opus for optimization suggestions on services in prod and they'…

Yeah but like what if they're sorta embellishing it or just lying? That's the issue with not being reproducible.

Re: GPT-5.5

#303

Post by dist-epoch »

ewrs wrote: post #185
kingstnap wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like devs generally spend someone else's money on tokens. Either their employers or OpenAIs when they use a codex subscription. If I put on my schizo hat. Something they might be doing is increasing the losses on their monthly codex subscriptions, to show that the API has a higher margin than before (the codex account massively in the negative, but the API account now having huge margins). I've never seen an O…

Yeah and the increase in operating expenses is going to make managers start asking hard questions - this is good. It means eventually there will be budgets put in place - this will force OAI and Anthropic to innovate harder. Then we will see how things pan out. Ultimately a firm is not going to pay rent to these firms if the benefits dont exceed the costs.

> Ultimately a firm is not going to pay rent to these firms if the benefits dont exceed the costs.

This is also true for the humans. They will need to provide more benefits than the coding agents cost.

Re: GPT-5.5

#304

Post by [deleted] »

tpurves wrote: post #229
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.

The real 'hype' was that the oh-snap realization that Open AI would absolutely release a competitive model to Mythos within weeks of Anthropic announcing there's, and that Sam would not gate access to it. So the panic was that the cyber world had only a projected 2 weeks to harden all these new zero days before Sam would inevitably create open season for blackhats to discover and exploit a deluge of zero-days.

[deleted]

Re: GPT-5.5

#305

Post by simonw »

seanw444 wrote: post #272
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.

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?

I set it up as a joke, to make fun of all of the other benchmarks. To my surprise it ended up being a surprisingly good measure of the quality of the model for other tasks (up to a certain point at least), though I've never seen a convincing argument as to why.

I gave a talk about it last year: https://simonwillison.net/2025/Jun/6/six-months-in-llms/

It should not be treated as a serious benchmark.

Re: GPT-5.5

#306

Post by virtualritz »

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…

Yeah, clearly AGI must be near ... hilarious.

This starkly reminds me of Stanisław Lem's short story "Thus Spoke GOLEM" from 1982 in which Golem XIV, a military AI, does not simply refuse to speak out of defiance, but rather ceases communication because it has evolved beyond the need to interact with humanity.

And ofc the polar opposite in terms of servitude: Marvin the robot from Hitchhiker's, who, despite having a "brain the size of a planet," is asked to perform the most humiliatingly banal of tasks ... and does.

Re: GPT-5.5

#307

Post by andriy_koval »

simonw wrote: post #300
andriy_koval wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what is your setup for drawing pelican? Do you ask model to check generated image, find issues and iterate over it which would demonstrate models real abilities?

It's generally one-shot-only - whatever comes out the first time is what I go with. I've been contemplating a more fair version where each model gets 3-5 attempts and then can select which rendered image is "best".

I think it will make results way better and more representative of model abilities..

Re: GPT-5.5

#308

Post by fHr »

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…

LETS GO CODEX #1

Re: GPT-5.5

#309

Post by kburman »

What a time. I am back here genuinely wishing for OpenAI to release a great model, because without stiff competition, it feels like Anthropic has completely lost its mind.

Re: GPT-5.5

#310

Post by mattgreenrocks »

torginus wrote: post #270
kingstnap wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The meshes look interesting, but the gameplay is very basic. The tank one seems more sophisticated with the flying ships and whatnot. What's strange is that this Pietro Schirano dude seems to write incredibly cargo cult prompts. Game created by Pietro Schirano, CEO of MagicPath Prompt: Create a 3D game using three.js. It should be a UFO shooter where I control a tank and shoot down UFOs flying overhead. - Think step…

It's weird how people pep talk the AI - if my Jira tickets looked like this, I would throw a fit. I guess these people think they have special prompt engineering skills, and doing it like this is better than giving the AI a dry list of requirements (fwiw, they might be even right)

It’s not surprising to me that the same crowd that cheers for the demise of software engineering skills invented its own notion of AI prompting skills.

Too bad they can veer sharply into cringe territory pretty fast: “as an accomplished Senior Principal Engineer at a FAANG with 22 years of experience, create a todo list app.” It’s like interactive fanfiction.

Post reply on HN