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

GPT-5.6

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 1001 posts

Re: GPT-5.6

#361

Post by Salgat »

10xDev wrote: post #234
meetpateltech wrote: post #154

GPT-5.6 Sol sets a new SOTA on ARC-AGI-3: 7.8% Sol is the first verified frontier model to ever beat an ARC-AGI-3 game https://arcprize.org/results/openai-gpt-5-6

Seeing the dramatic differences in scores just going from high to xhigh is just another demonstration of the bitter lesson: Just keep scaling search and learning. We are probably going to need a lot more GPUs.

Kind of refreshing though that the "throw more processing at it" scaling we saw in the 90s has returned in a different way. For a while we were really bottlenecked in our advances by relatively low levels of parallelism (most software used by your average user doesn't scale cleanly with more than a few threads).

Re: GPT-5.6

#362

Post by goodmattg »

2001zhaozhao wrote: post #360
goodmattg wrote: post #353

I flip back and forth between whoever currently has the more powerful frontier model that isn't cost prohibitive - subscriptions only, API pricing a non-starter. Today that's Fable 5 which has been excellent, as soon as it's Sol I'll switch to that. The OAI/Anthropic harness behavior has mostly stabilized for me with consistent AGENTS.md that I sync with CLAUDE.md - I like pi (pi.dev) and have tried to build it up to…

I'm working on a multi-harness IDE that supports custom agent workflows and skills that are shared between any harnesses it wraps over. I think it might prove handy for a workflow like yours.

Would it currently support Fable 5 via the restrictions Anthropic is placing on usage... because that's my major blocker

Re: GPT-5.6

#363

Post by stillpointlab »

minimaxir wrote: post #26

The developer's guide ( https://developers.openai.com/api/docs/guides/latest-model ) has some interesting semantic tips for using the model: > Intent understanding: GPT-5.6 can better infer the user’s underlying goal and intended level of work without you specifying every step. Continue to state important constraints, approval boundaries, and success criteria explicitly. > Original image detail: GPT-5.6 preserves the…

> Avoid generic brevity instructions: GPT-5.6 is more sensitive than GPT-5.5 to instructions such as “Be concise,” “Keep it short,” or “Use minimal text.”

I used to go to a barber and if you said "cut it short", he cut it really short.

Re: GPT-5.6

#364

Post by mempko »

lukebuehler wrote: post #240

Oh man, I love capitalism spoiling us here. I was just enjoying my extra Fable credits, now I'll switch to using 5.6 this weekend. I was planning to ration my Anthropic credits, I guess now I do not have to. And I was half wondering if exactly this would happen: right when Fable usage credits were starting to kick in for people, OAI swoops in and takes the puck. As much the AI craze is crazy, this play by play part i…

If hoarding is spoiling. You know what would be better than using fable and gpt 5.6, being able to run that level of model on your own hardware.

Re: GPT-5.6

#365

Post by AgentMasterRace »

wyre wrote: post #29
Syntaf wrote: post #6

Ok long time Claude Code user here; lately I've started to realize there's other great models out there I should be trying, but I'm hesitant to leave Claude Code behind for something new. What's the consensus today on codex vs claude code, does it really matter anymore?

Claude Code is a massively bloated agent harness. Try Pi: https://pi.dev/

better, use oh my pi.

Re: GPT-5.6

#366

Post by cromka »

minimaxir wrote: post #26

The developer's guide ( https://developers.openai.com/api/docs/guides/latest-model ) has some interesting semantic tips for using the model: > Intent understanding: GPT-5.6 can better infer the user’s underlying goal and intended level of work without you specifying every step. Continue to state important constraints, approval boundaries, and success criteria explicitly. > Original image detail: GPT-5.6 preserves the…

[flagged]

Re: GPT-5.6

#368

Post by adastra22 »

ljm wrote: post #208
hk__2 wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d argue the opposite. I’ve switched back and forth from one to the other and Opus/Fable has been constantly better than any GPT in my daily work. It’s a bit slower but it does the things right, with as little code as possible, some comments where needed. Codex is faster but you always have to correct it because it got something wrong; it writes tons of code ("let me add a small helper") with obvious comments.

Purely anecdotally the one persistent issue I have with LLMs writing code is that they are absolutely paranoid and add a load of indirection and defensive crap and even if you prompt to avoid that it will often require manual steering to remove the cruft.

I have not noticed this with Opus 4.6+. The result is usually not too far from what I would have written myself.

Re: GPT-5.6

#369

Post by xur17 »

Looks like I have access to gpt-5.6-terra and luna. How does one decide between gpt-5.5 and gpt-5.6-terra? Pricing is similar, but it's hard to tell if it's better..

Re: GPT-5.6

#370

Post by aerhardt »

jstummbillig wrote: post #162
Jcampuzano2 wrote: post #152

I really wish there was just an easy guide on when to use Sol vs Terra vs Luna, and it just moves further into confusing territory when it comes to naming. The naming convention is especially difficult to decipher depending on what your native language is. Of course a latin language speaker might be able to easily determine oh yeah each one is slightly bigger than the other but I still think it borderlines too confus…

Why would you need a guide for that now? We long had to pick different models (and thinking levels) by task and feel.

My guide was to pick the best model on "High" for 99% of tasks.
Post reply on HN