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

431–440 of 797 posts

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

#431

Post by SecretDreams »

CraigRood wrote: post #226
gonzalohm wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, this is the classic silicon valley strategy of selling at a loss and then once they have captured the market inflate prices. See Uber, Netflix, etc.

I don't see them capturing anything at this point. If inference was profitable then they could compete on price/model and capture the market. Then increase price and pay back the model training. Feels like they are just pulling in as much as they can whilst competing on capabilities instead. At which point its a case of who can last the longest. Doesn't feel like Uber/Netflix.

They're trying to do it more like a cartel where all major providers raise prices in unison. The intention is (probably) less specific entrapment and more getting people addicted to a fast LLM. From there, they all play with pricing to give a semblance of choice, without actually overly undercutting each other. At least, in the west.

This is all done to help valuations. The main revenue source are the investor dollars at the prospect that this industry will very soon actually be sustainable and highly profitable. It won't be, but if very soon stays around the corner consistently, the investor dollars keep coming.

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

#432

Post by pjmorris »

b112 wrote: post #388
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.…

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, analyticall…

What this made me think of is life before computers, where people mildly handshake, create agreements on the fly. "Where communication is fuzzy and locked in on an individual basis."

TBH, to me, this imagined future looks a lot like it'd have all the problems we already have.

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

#433

Post by dcre »

ComputerGuru wrote: post #319

“ Terra has competitive performance to GPT‑5.5 [while being 2x cheaper]…” To me that means “it’s an inferior product but marketing dictates we try and hide that.” And “our most robust safety stack to date. We strengthened protections for higher-risk activity, sensitive cyber requests, and repeated misuse, and spent multiple weeks finding weaknesses, pressure-testing our system, and hardening it against real-world att…

That message is obviously aimed at the government. See the other thread.

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

#434

Post by unfitted2545 »

Gareth321 wrote: post #399
b112 wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, analyticall…

It's very easy to see how world changing this technology will be. In a few years these AIs are going to be negotiating how they communicate with each other. Humans won't necessarily be included in that negotiation unless we have some kind of specific reason to. So many communication layers are going to be opaque to humans. We just have to trust our AIs are communicating efficiently and safely.

It will be fun running into this scenario where it's run without democratic control, be proprietary and for profit.

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

#435

Post by momena »

seaal wrote: post #427
andai wrote: post #417

Hijacking popular thread to ask: What are the usage limits now for Codex and Claude? A while back I gave the same task to both, and Codex used 20x less of my 5-hour limit (both on the $20/month plan). (This annoyed me since I tend to prefer Claude, but the limits at the time made it unusable for anything serious.) However, since that time, both providers have massively reduced usage allowances (and at least one of th…

This past month with Claude Max 5x actually felt really generous in terms of usage with a lot of resets because of Fable, bugs. Honestly pretty similar levels of usage if you are using 5.5 high or Opus 4.8 high. I think they just got rid of the separate Sonnet usage on Max plans (in preparation for Sonnet 5?) which is unfortunate because it made subagent workflows really feels nearly unlimited.

Is 5.5 high the equivalent of opus 4.8 high though? I thought the naming has diverged and gpt 5.5 high = opus 4.8 max

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

#436

Post by sigmoid10 »

mchusma wrote: post #264
sigmoid10 wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least they plan to give the public all versions. Feels infinitely better than whatever the hell is happening at Anthropic. > "Yeah, we've got the absolute best model out there. Trust us. Truly scary." > "O-ok? May I see it?" > "Gtfo. Here's a worse version of it for you plebs." > "Um, thanks?" > "Lmao, actually no. The current admin fell for our scare marketing. Here, have this even worse crazy expensive token bur…

I don't see this as that different. Anthropic was the first one to get involved in the "AI models must be approved" regime. OpenAI just has the advantage of being second. (To be clear: I do not like this new paradigm)

OpenAI was already holding models back because "dAnGeR" before anyone knew or cared about them. It's always been a PR gag and Anthropic just so happens to be better at marketing than making frontier models available to a general audience, much to their own dismay.

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

#437

Post by aenis »

hereme888 wrote: post #208
jdw64 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a lot of tacit knowledge in programming. -Why do you cut API boundaries this way? -Why do you change the order of struct fields? -Why do you deliberately insert padding? Most of it depends on the background and context. Sometimes you add it, sometimes you don't. To understand this tacit knowledge, you need access to senior developers. But their attitude often depends on how promising the student is and what b…

What do you think of modern open-source codebases presently available to the public? Is closed-source/proprietary code that much better?

Closed, proprietary code is way, way worse.

Good programmers are ashamed to push anything less than good (at least in their own opinion) to popular public repos. Some of those same pedantic programmers have no problem pushing crap in enterprise repos, and feel absolved because they are pushed to focus on deadlines, new features, and refactoring is very rarely planned for. I did and managed a lot of corporate software development in companies big and small, and did my fair bit of M&As and looked at codebases of successful companies. I dont ever recall feeling impressed. And I am regularly impressed by the aesthetic qualities of popular open source packages. I think commercial code is mostly shit, with the exception of regulated, serious industries (power, space, flight, etc.).

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

#438

Post by b112 »

mikepurvis wrote: post #419
b112 wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have an active 'sleep' mode, where when the user is AFK the LLM goes into a loop with a sleep 10 between turns, and determines (via tool use) if something should be done. That's still a 'turn' in a way, but it's all the LLM just sort of sitting around like a human would, pondering what to do next. But I could imagine after each space(eg, word) having a 27b model on a nice rig, with thinking off, doing a quick look…

Yeah, I've played with some similar stuff on my 9070xt. But ultimately all the ceremony on top is cloaking that it's still just two or more models taking turns prompting each other to give the illusion of continuous thought. It's still one thought at a time, with every thought starting from scratch with a big chunk of prior context. The idea of true continuous thought and memory-generation is very interesting, though…

I think they're definitely attention based. They're just immensely faster than LLMs, because a lot of processing is in silicon in a sense. Think of a ball flying towards you, you don't have to think, the data is handed to your conscious mind, speed, direction, which literally knows how to snag the ball out of the air.

But we have multiple things vying for attention, and some are immediate. Being on the phone talking to someone with great attention, and then touching a burning surface -- you immediately pull your hand back (lizard brain) before even being aware you're doing it. The same with peripheral vision and something surprising coming at you from the side. It snags your attention.

So maybe we are turn-ish based, but just multiple parallel processes each with their own turn? Neurons have their own 'trigger', and I think the brain has layers of triggers, each aggregating and filtering up to the top which then triggers.

I think doing this all with an LLM is silly, some of it should be innate, such as peripheral vision. Data handed to the main thread when triggers occur. I wouldn't want an LLM to handle "walking" fully either.

Some octupus have a sub-brain in each tentacle, each thinking and feeling, there are serious questions as to what its mind is like. I feel initial LLM powered androids may have to be like this a bit.

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

#439

Post by windexh8er »

Kirby64 wrote: post #429
windexh8er wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get that, but not at 15k tokens/s.

But it’s irrelevant. 750 tokens/s on a full frontier model is useful. 15000 poor quality tokens is much less useful no matter how much scaffolding you put around it.

I think you missed the point and don't understand / aren't considerate of SLM utility.

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

#440

Post by qznc »

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…

https://mikeveerman.github.io/tokenspeed/?rate=750&mode=thin...

This is what 750tps looks like, I guess.

Post reply on HN