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

501–510 of 1001 posts

Re: GPT-5.5

#501

Post by gck1 »

jawiggins wrote: post #273

What is the major and minor semver meaning for these models? Is each minor release a new fine-tuning with a new subset of example data while the major releases are made from scratch? Or do they even mean anything at this point?

Nothing. The next major increment is going to happen when marketing department is confident they can sell it as a major improvement without everyone laughing at them. Which at this point seems like never.

I think Anthropic fearmongering and "leaks" of Mythos was them testing the ground for 5.x, which seems to have backfired.

Re: GPT-5.5

#502

Post by davmar »

_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…

i wonder if this is how engineers felt when the first electronic calculators came out and engineers stopped doing math by hand.

did we feel uneasy that a new generation of builders didn't have to solve equations by hand because a calculator could do them?

i'm not sure it's the same analogy but in some ways it holds.

Re: GPT-5.5

#503

Post by rglullis »

__alexs wrote: post #469
_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…

I feel like most engineers I talk to still haven't realised what this is going to mean for the industry. The power loom for coding is here. Our skills still matter, but differently.

> power loom

When the power loom came around, what happened with most seamtresses? Did they move on to become fashion designers, materials engineers to create new fabrics, chemists to create new color dyes, or did they simply retire or were driven out of the workforce?

Re: GPT-5.5

#504

Post by Schlagbohrer »

mudkipdev wrote: post #160

This is 3x the price of GPT-5.1, released just 6 months ago. Is no one else alarmed by the trend? What happens when the cheaper models are deprecated/removed over time?

As others have mentioned you're ignoring the long tail of open-weights models which can be self hosted. As long as that quasi-open-source competition keeps up the pace, it will put a cap on how expensive the frontier models can get before people have to switch to self-hosting.

That's a big if, though. I wish Meta were still releasing top of the line, expensively produced open-weights models. Or if Anthropic, Google, or X would release an open mini version.

Re: GPT-5.5

#505

Post by Pym »

0x62 wrote: post #51
astlouis44 wrote: post #9

A playable 3D dungeon arena prototype built with Codex and GPT models. Codex handled the game architecture, TypeScript/Three.js implementation, combat systems, enemy encounters, HUD feedback, and GPT‑generated environment textures. Character models, character textures, and animations were created with third-party asset-generation tools The game that this prompt generated looks pretty decent visually. A big part of th…

FWIW I've been experimenting with Three.js and AI for the last ~3 years, and noticed a significant improvement in 5.4 - the biggest single generation leap for Three.js specifically. It was most evident in shaders (GLSL), but also apparent in structuring of Three.js scenes across multiple pages/components. It still struggles to create shaders from scratch, but is now pretty adequate at editing existing shaders. In 5.2…

One struggle I'm having (with Claude) is that most of what it knows about Three.js is outdated. I haven't used GPT in a while, is the grass greener?

Have you tried any skills like cloudai-x/threejs-skills that help with that? Or built your own?

Re: GPT-5.5

#506

Post by eloisant »

torginus wrote: post #270
kingstnap wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The meshes look interesting, but the gameplay is very basic. The tank one seems more sophisticated with the flying ships and whatnot. What's strange is that this Pietro Schirano dude seems to write incredibly cargo cult prompts. Game created by Pietro Schirano, CEO of MagicPath Prompt: Create a 3D game using three.js. It should be a UFO shooter where I control a tank and shoot down UFOs flying overhead. - Think step…

It's weird how people pep talk the AI - if my Jira tickets looked like this, I would throw a fit. I guess these people think they have special prompt engineering skills, and doing it like this is better than giving the AI a dry list of requirements (fwiw, they might be even right)

Yes, this is cargo cult.

This remind me of so called "optimization" hacks that people keep applying years after their languages get improved to make them unnecessary or even harmful.

Maybe at one point it helped to write prompts in this weird way, but with all the progress going on both in the models and the harness if it's not obsolete yet it will soon be. Just crufts that consumes tokens and fills the context window for nothing.

Re: GPT-5.5

#507

Post by hapticmonkey »

davmar wrote: post #502
_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…

i wonder if this is how engineers felt when the first electronic calculators came out and engineers stopped doing math by hand. did we feel uneasy that a new generation of builders didn't have to solve equations by hand because a calculator could do them? i'm not sure it's the same analogy but in some ways it holds.

The analogy would hold if there were 2 or 3 calculator companies and all your calculations had to be sent to them.

If local models get good enough, I think it’s a very different scenario than engineers all over the world relying on central entities which have their own motives.

Re: GPT-5.5

#508

Post by professoretc »

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.

If my compiler "went down" I could still think through the problem I was trying to solve, maybe even work out the code on paper. I could reach a point where I would be fairly confident that I had the problem solved, even though I lacked the ability to actually implement the solution.

If my LLM goes down, I have nothing. I guess I could imagine prompts that might get it to do what I want, but there's no guarantee that those would work once it's available again. No amount of thought on my part will get me any closer to the solution, if I'm relying on the LLM as my "compiler".

Re: GPT-5.5

#509

Post by Spartan-S63 »

jstummbillig wrote: post #417
_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 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…

At some point, because these models are trained on existing data, you cease significant technological advancement--at least in tech (as it relates to programming languages, paradigms, etc). You also deskill an entire group of people to the extent that when an LLM fails to accomplish a task, it becomes nearly impossible to actually accomplish it manually.

It's learned-helplessness on a large scale.

Re: GPT-5.5

#510

Post by Salgat »

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 hate this comparison because you're comparing a well defined deterministic interface with LLM output, which is the exact opposite.
Post reply on HN