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

Previewing GPT‑5.6 Sol: a next-generation model

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 797 posts

Re: Previewing GPT‑5.6 Sol: a next-generation model

#381

Post by ddp26 »

simianwords wrote: post #135
ddp26 wrote: post #8

I'm going to pre-register my prediction that GPT-5.6 Sol is significantly behind Claude Fable 5, as evaluated by general consensus once time has passed for people to get familiar with both.

I’m countering this prediction by stating that Fable and Sol will be somewhat similar - this has always been the trend and I see no reason why this should stop now.

Is this the trend? There have been various points where one of Anthropic or OpenAI was substantially ahead. Sure, many times they're close, but now doesn't seem like one of them.

Re: Previewing GPT‑5.6 Sol: a next-generation model

#382

Post by ddp26 »

nharada wrote: post #357
ddp26 wrote: post #8

I'm going to pre-register my prediction that GPT-5.6 Sol is significantly behind Claude Fable 5, as evaluated by general consensus once time has passed for people to get familiar with both.

Is that the correct comparison? Fable is twice the price

Fair point.

Re: Previewing GPT‑5.6 Sol: a next-generation model

#383

Post by ai_fry_ur_brain »

wolttam wrote: post #56
HyperL0gi wrote: post #29

Here is a trend I'm noticing: - GPT-5 mini costs $0.25/$2 and will be discontinued in December. - GPT-5.4 mini costs $0.75/$4.5 and is supposed to be the replacement. - GPT-5.4 nano costs $0.2/$1.25 and, while it ranks better in benchmarks than GPT-5 mini, it's not even close when you test it in real scenarios. So you're left being forced to go to GPT 5.4 mini if you use 5 mini today. The same thing is happening here…

If you have no need for Anthropic/OpenAI's frontier model capability, you may be better served with an open-weight model that can't be taken away. Edit: > GPT-5 does the job. I bring up DeepSeek V4 Flash a lot on HN, but I want to mention that according to Artificial Analysis, it trades blows with GPT-5 (high) (from August, 2025) [0] [0]: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/comparisons/deepseek-v4...

Deepseek V4 flash is actually useless. Sorry I've tested it after seeing so many comments like these. On Open router when trying to get it to output tool calls for creating tables, instead of providing the structured output correctly it was sending me peoples dropbox links and other image sharing site urls that led to pictures of random tables...

Llms seem to only impress a certain type of person. Hint, this type of person also was really excited about NFTs.

Re: Previewing GPT‑5.6 Sol: a next-generation model

#384

Post by theptip »

paxys wrote: post #284
theptip wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“More intelligence” is the new feature. Almost everyone is asking for this. Citation: have you looked at OAI and Anthropic’s customer growth numbers?

Every use case of every customer doesn’t need more intelligence. I’m willing to bet that the vast majority will be perfectly fine running on “low intelligence” at a cheap price forever.

I for sure agree that plenty of current use-cases are solvable by non-frontier models.

However, you said “new versions with features that nobody asked for”, and I would prefer that you concede the point before shifting to arguing a new point.

What customers are asking for is smarter models. Because the tasks that only smarter models can solve are higher value, higher margin, than the tasks that non-frontier models can solve.

Re: Previewing GPT‑5.6 Sol: a next-generation model

#386

Post by wolttam »

lmf4lol wrote: post #338
wolttam wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have no need for Anthropic/OpenAI's frontier model capability, you may be better served with an open-weight model that can't be taken away. Edit: > GPT-5 does the job. I bring up DeepSeek V4 Flash a lot on HN, but I want to mention that according to Artificial Analysis, it trades blows with GPT-5 (high) (from August, 2025) [0] [0]: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/comparisons/deepseek-v4...

We rolled out Deepseek V4 Flash to our customers and it was an absolute disaster, unfortunately. It was not able to follow simple commands, always "forgot" to do things, lied consistently about its work, and so on. It was pretty good though on on-off work, like summarizing something or executing simple commands, so we are experimenting now with using it for subagent work with clear instructions and hand off. Deepseek…

I found Flash to be a bit shaky as well until I started using it in xhigh/max thinking effort, then it became my daily driver. It runs quite well on a couple of DGX Sparks.

I still wish it was a little better, but there's hope for another model checkpoint (maybe with some of GLM 5.2's goodness distilled into it, that would be nice).

Re: Previewing GPT‑5.6 Sol: a next-generation model

#387

Post by kingstnap »

BoorishBears wrote: post #252

> For GPT‑5.6 and later models, cache writes are billed at 1.25x the model’s uncached input rate, while cache reads continue to receive the 90% cached-input discount. Not them joining Anthropic with this bullshit. * Caching infrastructure is already a leaky abstraction over a feature that is not as reliable or debuggable to the end user as it should be, charging for the 'privilege' of interacting with it is really an…

This is basically just a 25% price increase being done subversively. Usually you do need caching.

Re: Previewing GPT‑5.6 Sol: a next-generation model

#388

Post by b112 »

bob1029 wrote: post #350
gandreani wrote: post #177

Easily the most interesting part of this announcement is buried in the second to last paragraph: "We're also launching GPT‑5.6 Sol on Cerebras at up to 750 tokens per second in July, bringing frontier intelligence to customers at unprecedented speed. Access will initially be limited to select customers as we expand capacity." 750 tokens/s on a frontier model is going to be extremely interesting. I doubt this new vers…

At a certain rate we will be able to move towards continuous / real-time inference systems. The discrete, turn based solutions are quite confining with how they must be trained. Continuous and real-time would fundamentally alter the domain. From an information theory perspective we are still in dial-up territory with regard to the actual information rate. 750 tokens per second would be a really bad dialup connection.…

Your comment made me think of another real time. Real time, dynamic code/apis.

Imagine a world where there is no code, just things mildly handshaking and then creating data APIs on the fly. Where communication is fuzzy and locked in on an individual basis. No years of RFCs, no RFCs at all, just... data.

Just data, man.

An API arbitration aberratically assigned at authorized access, abridged and annotated, analytically assuring absolute assurance.

Re: Previewing GPT‑5.6 Sol: a next-generation model

#389

Post by zbaby »

ai_fry_ur_brain wrote: post #377
bob1029 wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At a certain rate we will be able to move towards continuous / real-time inference systems. The discrete, turn based solutions are quite confining with how they must be trained. Continuous and real-time would fundamentally alter the domain. From an information theory perspective we are still in dial-up territory with regard to the actual information rate. 750 tokens per second would be a really bad dialup connection.…

Ahh yes slop at the speed of light, how useful!

AI is improving and seems to be reaching the point of not being slop (I am talking about flagship models).

Re: Previewing GPT‑5.6 Sol: a next-generation model

#390

Post by verve_rat »

citadel_melon wrote: post #336
ffsm8 wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thankfully he didn't say that they're all like that. Instead he pointed out the few that are as a well known example of similar behavior. If you reread the comment with a fresh mind you'll notice that you misunderstood what he wrote

When attacking archetypes of people, there is some responsibility to make clear who you’re attacking and why, even to someone who’s not being hyper-open-minded. At least if you want them to learn from you: which may or may not be your goal. When you attack/signal you’re on the offensive, it is foolish to believe that they won’t knee-jerk attack back and become closed minded at least a little. Regardless, the “misinte…

When you read someone's comment there is some responsibility to read the words they wrote and not attempt to attack them for an argument no reasonable person would extract from those words.
Post reply on HN