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

471–480 of 634 posts

Re: GPT-5.3-Codex

#471

Post by aulin »

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…

Admit I didn't follow the announcements but isn't that a matter of UI? Doesn't seem something that should be baked in the model but in the tooling around it and the instructions you give them. E.g. I've been playing with with GitHub copilot CLI (that despite the bad fame is absolutely amazing) and the same model completely changes its behavior with the prompt. You can have it answer a question promptly or send it on a multi-hour multi-agent exploration writing detailed specs with a single prompt. Or you can have it stop midway for clarification. It all depends on the instructions. Also this is particularly interesting with GitHub billing model as each prompt counts 1 request no matter how many tokens it burns.

Re: GPT-5.3-Codex

#472

Post by cruffle_duffle »

esperent wrote: post #468
fluidcruft wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That just seems like a UI difference. I've always interrupted claude code added a comment and it's continued without much issue. Otherwise if you just type the message is queued for next. There's no real reason to prefer one over the other except it sounds like codex can't queue messages?

The problem is if you're using subagents, the only way to interject is often to press escape multiple times which kills all the running subagents. All I wanted to do was add a minor steering guideline. This might be better with the new teams feature.

That is so annoying too because it basically throws away all the work the subagent did.

Another thing that annoys me is the subagents never output durable findings unless you explicitly tell their parent to prompt the subagent to “write their output to a file for later reuse” (or something like that anyway)

I have no idea how but there needs to be ways to backtrack on context while somehow also maintaining the “future context”…

Re: GPT-5.3-Codex

#473

Post by manmal »

apetresc wrote: post #437
falloutx wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Opus is really good at bash, and it’s damn fast. Codex is catching up on that front, but it’s still nowhere near. However, Codex is better at coding - full stop.

Re: GPT-5.3-Codex

#474

Post by bgirard »

gspetr wrote: post #443
bgirard wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you. There's a demo save to get the full feel of it quickly. There's also a 2D-ASCII and 3D render you can hotswap between. The 3D models are generated with Meshy. The entire game is 'AI slop'. I intentionally did no code reviews to see where that would get me. Some prompts were very specific but other prompts were just 'add a research of your choice'. This was built using old versions of Codex, Gemini and Clau…

Any estiimates on how much it cost you? In terms of total real world time, money, and time spent by the agents.

About ~$300: $200 for Claude max subscription $20 for Vercel $20 for Codex $20 for Meshy

I think these days the $200 Max subscription wouldn't be needed. I bet with these latest models you can make due with mixing two $20/mo subscriptions.

Real time was 2 weeks of watching the agents while watching TV and playing games, waiting for limit resets, etc... Very little decided focused time.

Re: GPT-5.3-Codex

#475

Post by oofbey »

jorl17 wrote: post #369
superfrank wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I only switched to using the terminal based agents in the last week. Prior to this I was pretty much only using it through Cursor and GH Copilot. The Anthropic models when used through GH Copilot were far superior to the codex ones and I didn't really get the hype of Codex. Using them through the CLI though, Codex is much better, IMO. My guess is that it's potentially that and just momentum from developers who starte…

Out of curiosity, what do you feel are the key differences between cursor + models versus something like Claude Code/Codex? Are you feeling the benefits of the switch? What prompted you to change? I've been running cursor with my own workflows (where planning is definitely a key step) and it's been great. However, the feeling of missing out, coupled with the fact I am a paying ChatGPT customer, got me to try codex. I…

AFAICT it really is just a preference for terminal vs IDE. The terminal folks often believe terminal is intrinsically better and say things like “you’re still using an IDE.” Yegge makes this quite explicit in his gastown manifesto.

I been using Unix command lines since before most people here were born. And I actively prefer cursor to the text only coding agents. I like being able to browse the code next to the chat and easily switch between sessions, see markdown rendered properly, etc.

On fundamentals I think the differences are vanishing. They have converged on the same skills format standards. Cursor uses RAG for file lookups but Claude reads the whole file - token efficiency vs completeness. They both seem to periodically innovate some orchestration function which the other copies a few weeks later.

I think it really is just a stylistic preference. But the Claude people seem convinced Claude is better. Having spent a bunch of time analyzing both I just don’t see it.

Re: GPT-5.3-Codex

#476

Post by F7F7F7 »

aulin wrote: post #471
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…

Admit I didn't follow the announcements but isn't that a matter of UI? Doesn't seem something that should be baked in the model but in the tooling around it and the instructions you give them. E.g. I've been playing with with GitHub copilot CLI (that despite the bad fame is absolutely amazing) and the same model completely changes its behavior with the prompt. You can have it answer a question promptly or send it on…

It depends honestly. Both are prone to doing the exact opposite of what you asked. Especially with poor context management.

I’ve had both $200 plans and now just have Max x20 and use the $20 ChatGPT plan for an inferior Codex.

My experience (up until today) has always been that Codex acts like that one Sr Engineer that we all know. They are kind of a dick. And will disappear into a dark hole and emerge with a circle when you asked for a pentagon. Then let you know why edges are bad for you.

And yes, Anthropic is pivoting hard into everything agentic. I bet it’s not too long before Claude Code stops differentiating models. I had Opus blow 750k tokens on a single small task.

Re: GPT-5.3-Codex

#477

Post by szundi »

Rudybega wrote: post #323
StephenHerlihyy wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What amazes me the most is the speed at which things are advancing. Go back a year or even a year before that and all these incremental improvements have compounded. Things that used to require real effort to consistently solve, either with RAGs, context/prompt engineering, have become… trivial. I totally agree with your point that each step along the way doesn’t necessarily change that much. But in the aggregate it’…

The denial of this overall trend on here and in other internet spaces is starting to really bother me. People need to have sober conversations about the speed of this increase and what kind of effects it's going to have on the world.

[dead]

Re: GPT-5.3-Codex

#478

Post by baq »

svantana wrote: post #258
xandrius wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why even come to this site if you're so anti-innovation? Today with LLMs you can literally spend 5 minutes defining what you want to get, press send, go grab a coffee and come back to a working POC of something, in literally any programming language. This is literally stuff of wonders and magic that redefines how we interface with computers and code. And the only thing you can think of is to ask if it can do somethin…

There are different kinds of innovation. I want AI that cures cancer and solves climate change. Instead we got AI that lets you plagiarize GPL code, does your homework for you, and roleplay your antisocial horny waifu fantasies.

Hard problems take more time than easy problems

Re: GPT-5.3-Codex

#479

Post by cowl »

xandrius wrote: post #199
nananana9 wrote: post #173

I've been listening to the insane 100x productivity gains you all are getting with AI and "this new crazy model is a real game changer" for a few years now, I think it's about time I asked: Can you guys point me ton a single useful, majority LLM-written, preferably reliable, program that solves a non-trivial problem that hasn't been solved before a bunch of times in publicly available code?

Why even come to this site if you're so anti-innovation? Today with LLMs you can literally spend 5 minutes defining what you want to get, press send, go grab a coffee and come back to a working POC of something, in literally any programming language. This is literally stuff of wonders and magic that redefines how we interface with computers and code. And the only thing you can think of is to ask if it can do somethin…

Agree but you are talking about a POC, and he is talking about reliable, working software. this phase of LLM are perfect for POCs and there you can have 10x speedup, no question. But going from a POC to a working reliable software is where most of our time is spent anyway even without LLMS.

With LLMs this phase becomes worse. we speedup 10x the poc time, we slow down almost as much in the next phases, because now you have a poc of 10k lines that you are not familiar with at all, that have to pay way more attention at code review, that have to bolt on security as an afterthought (a major slowdown now, so much so that there are dedicated companies whose business model has become fixing Security problems caused by LLM POCs). Next phase, POCs are almost always 99% happy path. Bolt on edge case as another after thought and because you did not write any of those 10k lines how do you even know what edge cases might be neccesary to cover? maybe you guessed it rigth, spend even more time studing the unfamiliar code.

We use LLM extensivly now in our day to day, development has become somewhat more enjoyable but there is, at least as of now, no real increase in final delivry times, we have just redestributed where effort and time goes.

Re: GPT-5.3-Codex

#480

Post by theLiminator »

Rudybega wrote: post #323
StephenHerlihyy wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What amazes me the most is the speed at which things are advancing. Go back a year or even a year before that and all these incremental improvements have compounded. Things that used to require real effort to consistently solve, either with RAGs, context/prompt engineering, have become… trivial. I totally agree with your point that each step along the way doesn’t necessarily change that much. But in the aggregate it’…

The denial of this overall trend on here and in other internet spaces is starting to really bother me. People need to have sober conversations about the speed of this increase and what kind of effects it's going to have on the world.

Yeah, I really didn't believe in agentic coding until December, that was where it took off from being slightly more useful than hand crafting code to becoming extremely powerful.
Post reply on HN