It's so difficult to compare these models because they're not running the same set of evals. I think literally the only eval variant that was reported for both Opus 4.6 and GPT-5.3-Codex is Terminal-Bench 2.0, with Opus 4.6 at 65.4% and GPT-5.3-Codex at 77.3%. None of the other evals were identical, so the numbers for them are not comparable.
GPT-5.3-Codex
41–50 of 634 posts
Re: GPT-5.3-Codex
#42,,GPT‑5.3-Codex is the first model we classify as High capability for cybersecurity-related tasks under our Preparedness Framework , and the first we’ve directly trained to identify software vulnerabilities. While we don’t have definitive evidence it can automate cyber attacks end-to-end, we’re taking a precautionary approach and deploying our most comprehensive cybersecurity safety stack to date. Our mitigations include safety training, automated monitoring, trusted access for advanced capabilities, and enforcement pipelines including threat intelligence.''
While I love Codex and believe it's amazing tool, I believe their preparedness framework is out of date. As it is more and more capable of vibe coding complex apps, it's getting clear that the main security issues will come up by having more and more security critical software vibe coded.
It's great to look at systems written by humans and how well Codex can be used against software written by humans, but it's getting more important to measure the opposite: how well humans (or their own software) are able to infiltrate complex systems written mostly by Codex, and get better on that scale.
In simpler terms: Codex should write secure software by default.
Re: GPT-5.3-Codex
#43[flagged]
Re: GPT-5.3-Codex
#44Is this me or Sam is being absolute sore loser he is and trying to steal Opus thunder?
They both are doing this to each other.
BTW, loser is spelled with a single o.
Re: GPT-5.3-Codex
#45Is this me or Sam is being absolute sore loser he is and trying to steal Opus thunder?
You could also claim that Anthropic is trying to scoop OpenAI by launching minutes earlier, as OpenAI has done with Google in the past.
For downvoters, you must be naive to think these companies are not surveilling each other through various means.
Re: GPT-5.3-Codex
#46I find it very, very interesting how they demoed visuals in the form of the “soft SaaS” website and mentioned how it can do user research. Codex has usually lagged behind Claude and Gemini when it comes to UX, so I’m curious to see if 5.3 will take the lead in real world use. Perhaps it’ll be available in Figma Make now?
Re: GPT-5.3-Codex
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do not trust the AI benchmarks much, they often do not line up with my experience. That said ... I do think Codex 5.2 was the best coding model for more complex tasks, albeit quite slow. So very much looking forward to trying out 5.3.
Another day, another hn thread of "this model changes everything" followed immediately by a reply stating "actually I have the literal opposite experience and find competitor's model is the best" repeated until it's time to start the next day's thread.
This pretty accurately summarizes all the long discussions about AI models on HN.
Re: GPT-5.3-Codex
#48It is absurd to release 5.3-Codex before first releasing 5.3. Also, there is no reason for OpenAI and Anthropic to be trying to one-up each other's releases on the same day. It is hell for the reader.
Why is it absurd?
Re: GPT-5.3-Codex
#49Is this me or Sam is being absolute sore loser he is and trying to steal Opus thunder?
Why is it loser? He very well could be a sore winner here.
Re: GPT-5.3-Codex
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do not trust the AI benchmarks much, they often do not line up with my experience. That said ... I do think Codex 5.2 was the best coding model for more complex tasks, albeit quite slow. So very much looking forward to trying out 5.3.
Another day, another hn thread of "this model changes everything" followed immediately by a reply stating "actually I have the literal opposite experience and find competitor's model is the best" repeated until it's time to start the next day's thread.
[flagged]