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

431–440 of 634 posts

Re: GPT-5.3-Codex

#431

Post by sfmike »

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…

It's the opposite? codex course corrects and is self inquisitive. opus is just wrong and need to refeed it it's wrong.

Re: GPT-5.3-Codex

#432

Post by dimgl »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #429
dimgl wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm building an entire game on Unity using LLMs. It's an action RPG.

Is it just a game built with LLMs or are you leaning into the cheap content gen capabilities to make the game exceptionally deep/braod?

I'm building all of the systems with LLMs and using LLMs to fast track the creation of content such as storylines, characters, etc. All of the assets are mostly bought and created by me.

Re: GPT-5.3-Codex

#433

Post by [deleted] »

thethimble wrote: post #224
cedws wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Define "losing." Europe is prematurely regarded as having lost the AI race. And yet a large portion of Europe live higher quality lives compared to their American counterparts, live longer, and don't have to worry about an elected orange unleashing brutality on them.

If the world is built on AI infrastructure (models, compute, etc.) that is controlled by the CCP then the west has effectively lost. This may lead to better life outcomes, but if the west doesn't control the whole stack then they have lost their sovereignty. This is already playing out today as Europe is dependent on the US for critical tech infrastructure (cloud, mail, messaging, social media, AI, etc). There's no h…

[deleted]

Re: GPT-5.3-Codex

#434

Post by Ronsenshi »

dimitri-vs wrote: post #407
comex wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In most cases security is not a matter of adding anything in particular, but a matter of just not making specific types of mistakes.

Maybe I'm being dumb but that reads very contradictory? I would say that security is explicitly a matter of adding particular things.

Not an OP, but seems like you might be talking about different things.

Security could be about not adding certain things/making certain mistakes. Like not adding direct SQL queries with data inserted as part of the query string and instead using bindings or ORM.

If you have insecure raw query that you feed into ORM that you added on top - that's not going to make query more secure.

But on the other hand when you're securing some endpoints in APIs you do add things like authorization, input validation and parsing.

So I think a lot depends on what you mean when you're talking about security.

Security is security - making sure bad things don't happen and in some cases it's different approach in the code, in some cases additions to the code and in some cases removing things from the code.

Re: GPT-5.3-Codex

#435

Post by lurking_swe »

energy123 wrote: post #418
AstroBen wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. It turns into a complete mess without someone that knows what they're doing to steer it. It's an upgrade to autocomplete

Unless you're retiring in less than 5 years this is extremely short sighted.

It’s also silly to try predicting the future 5 years from now, IMO. Historically progress is very unpredictable. It often plateaus when you least expect it.

It’s good to be cautious and not in denial, but i usually ignore people who talk so authoritatively about the future. It’s just a waste of time. Everyone thinks they are right.

My recommendation is have a very generous emergency fund and do your best to be effective at work. That’s the only thing you can control and the only thing that matters.

Re: GPT-5.3-Codex

#436

Post by brikym »

jacekm wrote: post #363
prng2021 wrote: post #82

Did they post the knowledge cutoff date somewhere

It's here: https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/models/over... Reliable knowledge cutoff: May 2025, training data cutoff: August 2025

This is the thread for GPT 5.3

Re: GPT-5.3-Codex

#437

Post by apetresc »

falloutx wrote: post #149
greenfish6 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yea but i feel like we are over the hill on benchmaxxing, many times a model has beaten anthropic on a specific bench, but the 'feel' is that it is still not as good at coding

When Anthropic beats Benchmarks its somehow earned, when OpenAi games it, its somehow about not feeling good at coding.

I mean… yeah? It sounds biased or whatever, but if you actually experience all the frontier models for yourself, the conclusion that Opus just has something the others don’t is inescapable.

Re: GPT-5.3-Codex

#438

Post by AstroBen »

energy123 wrote: post #418
AstroBen wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. It turns into a complete mess without someone that knows what they're doing to steer it. It's an upgrade to autocomplete

Unless you're retiring in less than 5 years this is extremely short sighted.

What would things look like to make someone with currently ~10 years of experience unemployable?

It's possible the job might change drastically, but I'm struggling to think of any scenario that doesn't also put most white collar professions out of work alongside me, and I don't think that's worth worrying about

Re: GPT-5.3-Codex

#439

Post by semiinfinitely »

mrkeen wrote: post #83
xiphias2 wrote: post #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 inc…

Is "high-capability" a stronger or weaker claim than "team of phd-level experts"? https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/openai-releases-chatg...

much stronger

Re: GPT-5.3-Codex

#440

Post by aurareturn »

dimgl wrote: post #424
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…

Did you get those backwards? Codex, Gemini, etc. all wait until the requests are done to accept user feedback. Claude Code allows you to insert messages in between turns.

Codex added an experimental feature to allow steering mid task.
Post reply on HN