Earlier quoted context omitted.
I picked up Claude today after being away and using only ChatGPT and Gemini for a while. I was pretty impressed with how they’ve improved user experience. If I had to guess, I’d say Anthropic has better product people who put more attention to detail in these areas.
ChatGPT has given more for my 20$ than any other vendor. And that’s not even considering codex which is so good and the limits are much much higher
GPT-5.4
541–550 of 868 posts
Re: GPT-5.4
#542Re: GPT-5.4
#543Re: GPT-5.4
#544I only want to see how it performs on the Bullshit-benchmark https://petergpt.github.io/bullshit-benchmark/viewer/index.v... GPT is not even close yo Claude in terms of responding to BS.
Re: GPT-5.4
#545Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most AI integration is like this. It's not about building working products --- it's about bragging that you put a chatbox in your program.
This is such a stale take. In the past 3 years I’ve worked on multiple products with AI at their core, not as some add-on. Just because the corpo-land dullards[0] can’t execute on anything more complex than shoehorning a chatbot into their offerings doesn’t mean there aren’t plenty of people and companies doing far more interesting things. [0] In this case, and with heavy irony, including OpenAI, although it sounds l…
>> This is such a stale take. In the past 3 years I’ve worked on multiple products with AI at their core, not as some add-on. Just because the corpo-land dullards[0] can’t execute on anything more complex than shoehorning a chatbot into their offerings doesn’t mean there aren’t plenty of people and companies doing far more interesting things.
I feel like this is just a disagreement of what "AI integration" means. You seem to agree that the trend they're describing exists, but it sounds like you're creating new products, not "integrating" it into existing ones.
Re: GPT-5.4
#546Earlier 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.
Re: GPT-5.4
#547I hate these blog posts sometimes. Surely there's got to be some tradeoff. Or have we finally arrived at the world's first "free lunch"? Otherwise why not make /fast always active with no mention and no way to turn it off?
Re: GPT-5.4
#548GPT-5.4: 75.1%
GPT-5.3-Codex: 77.3%
Re: GPT-5.4
#549Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure why you think Anthropic has not the same problems? Their version numbers across different model lines jump around too... for Opus we have 4.6, 4.5, 4.1 then we have Sonnet at 4.6, 4.5, and 4.1? No version 4.1 here, and there is Haiku, no 4.6, but 4.5 and no 4.1, no 4 but then we only have old 3.5... Also their pricing based on 5m/1h cache hits, cash read hits, additional charges for US inference (but only fo…
With Anthropic you always have 3 models to choose from: Opus-latest, Sonnet-latest, and Haiku-latest, from the best/slowest to the worst/fastest. The version numbers are mostly irrelevant as afaik price per token doesn't change between versions.
Re: GPT-5.4
#550Earlier quoted context omitted.
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