Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

GPT-5.5

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

491–500 of 1001 posts

Re: GPT-5.5

#491

Post by embedding-shape »

rglullis wrote: post #474
embedding-shape wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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".

What does it mean to "be an engineer" in a world where anyone can talk to a machine and the operating system can write the code (on-demand, if needed) that does what they want?

Indeed, and what is really the difference between a software engineer, programmer, coder and hacker anyways?

Re: GPT-5.5

#492

Post by stavros »

pantulis wrote: post #231
arjie wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Get the actual prompt and have Claude Code / Codex try it out via curl / python requests. The full prompt will yield debugging information. You have to set a few parameters to make sure you get the full gpt-5 performance. e.g. if your reasoning budget too low, you get gpt-4 grade performance. IMHO you should just write your own harness so you have full visibility into it, but if you're just using vanilla OpenClaw you…

> IMHO you should just write your own harness Can you point to some online resources to achieve this? I'm not very sure where I'd begin with.

Just use Pi core, no need to reinvent the wheel.

Re: GPT-5.5

#493

Post by ofjcihen »

moritonal wrote: post #481
ofjcihen wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think it's more: when I don't have access to a compiler I am useless. It's better to go for a walk than learn assembly. AI agents turn our high-level language into code, with various hints, much like the compiler.

Still misses the mark. You aren’t useless in the same way because you are still in control of reasoning about the exact code even if you never actually write it.

Re: GPT-5.5

#494

Post by ofjcihen »

simondotau wrote: post #484
ofjcihen wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Perhaps then, the better analogy is like being promoted at your company and having people under you doing the grunt work.

This is how I’ve come to think of it. Delegation of the details.

Re: GPT-5.5

#495

Post by theappsecguy »

sharts wrote: post #455
_alternator_ wrote: post #330

> One engineer at NVIDIA who had early access to the model went as far as to say: "Losing access to GPT‑5.5 feels like I've had a limb amputated.” This quote is more sinister than I think was intended; it likely applies to all frontier coding models. As they get better, we quickly come to rely on them for coding. It's like playing a game on God Mode. Engineers become dependent; it's truly addictive. This matches my o…

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 would argue it couldn't be more different. I can dive into the source code of any library, inspect it. I can assess how reliable a library is and how popular. Bugs aside, libraries are deterministic. I don't see why this parallel keeps getting made over and over again.

Re: GPT-5.5

#496

Post by giwook »

dandaka wrote: post #447
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.

Writing code is 10-100x faster, doing actual product engineering work is nowhere near that multipliers — no conflict!

Reviewing code is slower now though because you didn't write the code in the first place so you're basically reviewing someone else's PR. And now it's like a 3000 line PR in an hour or two instead of every couple weeks.

Re: GPT-5.5

#497

Post by unsupp0rted »

jfkimmes wrote: post #122

Everyone talked about the marketing stunt that was Anthropic's gated Mythos model with an 83% result on CyberGym. OpenAI just dropped GPT 5.5, which scores 82% and is open for anybody to use. I recommend anybody in offensive/defensive cybersecurity to experiment with this. This is the real data point we needed - without the hype! Never thought I'd say this but OpenAI is the 'open' option again.

Doesn't OpenAI get mad if you ask cybersecurity questions and force you to upload a government ID, otherwise they'll silently route you to a less capable model?

> Developers and security professionals doing cybersecurity-related work or similar activity that could be mistaken by automated detection systems may have requests rerouted to GPT-5.2 as a fallback.

https://developers.openai.com/codex/concepts/cyber-safety

https://chatgpt.com/cyber

Re: GPT-5.5

#498

Post by HasKqi »

_alternator_ wrote: post #330

> One engineer at NVIDIA who had early access to the model went as far as to say: "Losing access to GPT‑5.5 feels like I've had a limb amputated.” This quote is more sinister than I think was intended; it likely applies to all frontier coding models. As they get better, we quickly come to rely on them for coding. It's like playing a game on God Mode. Engineers become dependent; it's truly addictive. This matches my o…

This engineer had their brain amputated once they started using AI. All the AI-addicted can do is tinker with the AI computer game and feel "productive". They could as well play Magic The Gathering.

Re: GPT-5.5

#499

Post by simondotau »

Jtarii wrote: post #449
jstummbillig wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This quote is more sinister than I think was intended; it likely applies to all frontier coding models. As they get better, we quickly come to rely on them for coding. It's like playing a game on God Mode. Engineers become dependent; it's truly addictive. What's the worst potential outcome, assuming that all models get better, more efficient and more abundant (which seems to be the current trend)? The goal of engin…

>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.

It’s always been thus at lower layers of abstraction. Only a minority of programmers would understand how to write an operating system. Only a tiny number of people would know how a modern CPU logically works, and fewer still could explain the electrical physics.
Post reply on HN