Live data from Hacker News

GPT-5.4

openai.com

501–510 of 868 posts

Re: GPT-5.4

#501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The latest research these days is that including an AGENTS.md file only makes outcomes worse with frontier models.

:( how can i get claude to always make sure it prettier-s and lints changes before pushing up the pr though?

Run prettier etc in a hook.

Re: GPT-5.4

#502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The latest research these days is that including an AGENTS.md file only makes outcomes worse with frontier models.

:( how can i get claude to always make sure it prettier-s and lints changes before pushing up the pr though?

Git hooks

Re: GPT-5.4

#503

I've only used 5.4 for 1 prompt (edit: 3@high now) so far (reasoning: extra high, took really long), and it was to analyse my codebase and write an evaluation on a topic. But I found its writing and analysis thoughtful, precise, and surprisingly clearly written, unlike 5.3-Codex. It feels very lucid and uses human phrasing. It might be my AGENTS.md requiring clearer, simpler language, but at least 5.4's doing a good…

The latest research these days is that including an AGENTS.md file only makes outcomes worse with frontier models.

I wouldn't draw such conclusions from one preprint paper. Especially since they measured only success rate, while quite often AGENTS.md exists to improve code quality, which wasn't measured. And even then, the paper concluded that human written AGENTS.md raised success rates.

Re: GPT-5.4

#504

I've only used 5.4 for 1 prompt (edit: 3@high now) so far (reasoning: extra high, took really long), and it was to analyse my codebase and write an evaluation on a topic. But I found its writing and analysis thoughtful, precise, and surprisingly clearly written, unlike 5.3-Codex. It feels very lucid and uses human phrasing. It might be my AGENTS.md requiring clearer, simpler language, but at least 5.4's doing a good…

The latest research these days is that including an AGENTS.md file only makes outcomes worse with frontier models.

I think its understandable that you took that from the click-bait all over youtube and twitter, but I dont believe the research actually supports that at all, and neither does my experience.

You shouldnt put things in AGENTS.md that it could discover on its own, you shouldnt make it any larger than it has to be, but you should use it to tell it things it couldnt discover on its own, including basically a system prompt of instructions you want it to know about and always follow. You don't really have any other way to do those things besides telling it every time manually.

Re: GPT-5.4

#505

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google is already sending notices that the 2.5 models will be deprecated soon while all the 3.x models are in preview. It really is wild and peak Google.

Like building on quicksand for dependencies. I guess though the argument is that the foundation gets stronger over time

What dependancy could possibly be tied to a non deterministic ai model? Just include the latest one at your price point.

Re: GPT-5.4

#506
post #5

"GPT‑5.4 interprets screenshots of a browser interface and interacts with UI elements through coordinate-based clicking to send emails and schedule a calendar event." They show an example of 5.4 clicking around in Gmail to send an email. I still think this is the wrong interface to be interacting with the internet. Why not use Gmail APIs? No need to do any screenshot interpretation or coordinate-based clicking.

Lowest common denominator.

Re: GPT-5.4

#507

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> or have zero insurances that the model doesn't get discontinued within weeks Why are you using the same model after a month? Every month a better model comes out. They are all accessible via the same API. You can pay per-token. This is the first time in, like, all of technology history, that a useful paid service is so interoperable between providers that switching is as easy as changing a URL.

If you're trying to use LLMs in an enterprise context, you would understand. Switching models sometimes requires tweaking prompts. That can be a complete mess, when there are dozens or hundreds of prompts you have to test.

This sounds made up. Much like “prompt engineering” Let’s hear an actual example

Re: GPT-5.4

#508
post #71

I no longer want to support OpenAI at all. Regardless of benchmarks or real world performance.

I feel much the same. I know no AI lab is truly 'ethical' or free from some hand in modern warfare, but last week was enough.

Re: GPT-5.4

#509
In my day-to-day coding work, the top 3 coding agents are already good enough for me. On SWE-bench Verified, mini-SWE-agent + GPT-5.2 Codex is 72.8. I don’t see a comparable GPT-5.3 Codex number there, so I’m using 5.2 as the baseline. On OpenAI’s GPT-5.4 page (SWE-Bench Pro, Public), the score improves from 55.6 (GPT-5.2) to 57.7 (GPT-5.4), which is about +2.1 points. It’s a different benchmark, so this is only a rough signal, but I’d expect a similar setup on SWE-bench Verified to improve by a few points, not by a huge jump. I’m interested in how GPT-5.4 in Codex changes real-world results.

Recent SWE-bench Verified scores I’m watching:

Claude 4.5 Opus (high reasoning): 76.8

Gemini 3 Flash (high reasoning): 75.8

MiniMax M2.5 (high reasoning): 75.8

Claude Opus 4.6: 75.6

GPT-5.2 Codex: 72.8

Source: https://www.swebench.com/index.html

By the way, in my experience the agent part of Codex CLI has improved a lot and has become comparable to Claude Code. That is good news for OpenAI.

Post reply on HN