Live data from Hacker News

GPT-5.4

openai.com

541–550 of 868 posts

Re: GPT-5.4

#541
post #478

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

[deleted]

Re: GPT-5.4

#543
Very Apple-like marketing. No comparisons to other companies’ models, only to previous version of ChatGPT. Lots of phrases like “this is our best model yet”.

Re: GPT-5.4

#544

I 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.

My current hunch is that that benchmark captures most of the relevant gap between Anthropic and the rest. “Can’t distinguish truth from fiction” has long been one of the deeper complaints about LLMs, and the bullshit benchmark seems like a clever approach to testing at least some of that.

Re: GPT-5.4

#545

Earlier 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…

> Most AI integration is like this.

>> 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

#546

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.

sounds like job security. be careful what you wish for before you get automated

Re: GPT-5.4

#547
> When toggled on, /fast mode in Codex delivers up to 1.5x faster token velocity with GPT‑5.4. It’s the same model and the same intelligence, just faster.

I 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

#549

Earlier 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.

Three random names isn't ideal. I'm often need to double check which is which. This is why we use numbers

Re: GPT-5.4

#550

Earlier 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

OK, so a while back I set up a workflow to do language tagging. There were 6-8 stages in the pipeline where it would go out to an LLM and come back. Each one has its own prompt that has to be tweaked to get it to give decent results. I was only doing it for a smallish batch (150 short conversations) and only for private use; but I definitely wouldn't switch models without doing another informal round of quality assessment and prompt tweaking. If this were something I was using in production there would be a whole different level of testing and quality required before switching to a different model.
Post reply on HN