GPT-5.5

Post by moritonal » Thu, Apr 23, 2026, 9:50 PM UTC

ofjcihen wrote: post #470

sharts wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One might argue that it’s not too too different from higher level abstractions when using libraries. You get things done faster, write less code, library handles some internal state/memory management for you. Would one be uneasy about calling a library to do stuff than manually messing around with pointers and malloc()? For some, yes. For others, it’s a bit freeing as you can do more high-level architecture without g…

I see this comparison made constantly and for me it misses the mark. When you use abstractions you are still deterministically creating something you understand in depth with individual pieces you understand. When you vibe something you understand only the prompt that started it and whether or not it spits out what you were expecting. Hence feeling lost when you suddenly lose access to frontier models and take a look…

Post by keybored » Thu, Apr 23, 2026, 9:50 PM UTC

embedding-shape wrote: post #450

Alex_L_Wood wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, they obviously are going to say that, they have vested interest in OpenAI and thus Nvidia stock price growing. Also, I honestly can’t believe the 10x mantra is being still repeated.

> Also, I honestly can’t believe the 10x mantra is being still repeated. I'm sure in 20 years we'll all be programming via neural interfaces that can anticipate what you want to do before you even finished your thoughts, but I'm confident we'll still have blog posts about how some engineers are 10x while others are just "normal programmers".

Post by beering » Thu, Apr 23, 2026, 9:51 PM UTC

aliljet wrote: post #161

I've found myself so deeply embedded in the Claude Max subscription that I'm worried about potentially makign a switch. How are people making sure they stay nimble enough not to get trarpped by one company's ecosystem over another? For what it's worth, Opus 4.7 has not been a step up and it's come with an enormously higher usage of the subscription Anthropic offers making the entire offering double worse.

Post by Jtarii » Thu, Apr 23, 2026, 9:51 PM UTC

motoxpro wrote: post #457

Jtarii wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>What's the worst potential outcome, assuming that all models get better, more efficient and more abundant Complexity steadily rises, unencumbered by the natural limit of human understanding, until technological collapse, either by slow decay or major systems going down with increasing frequency.

why would the systems go down if the models are better at the humans at finding bugs. Playing a bit of devils advocate here, but why would the models be worse at handling the complexity if you assume they will get better and better. All software has bugs already.

Post by girvo » Thu, Apr 23, 2026, 9:53 PM UTC

jstanley wrote: post #132

amrrs wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly the problem with these is how empirical it is, how someone can reproduce this? I love when Labs go beyond traditional benchies like MMLU and friends but these kind of statements don't help much either - unless it's a proper controlled study!

Oh, come on, if they do well on benchmarks people question how applicable they are in reality. If they do well in reality people complain that it's not a reproducible benchmark...