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

GPT-5.4

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

551–560 of 868 posts

Re: GPT-5.4

#551

Post by WXLCKNO »

damsta wrote: post #259
minimaxir wrote: post #8

The marquee feature is obviously the 1M context window, compared to the ~200k other models support with maybe an extra cost for generations beyond >200k tokens. Per the pricing page, there is no additional cost for tokens beyond 200k: https://openai.com/api/pricing/ Also per pricing, GPT-5.4 ($2.50/M input, $15/M output) is much cheaper than Opus 4.6 ($5/M input, $25/M output) and Opus has a penalty for its beta >200…

There is extra cost for >272K: > For models with a 1.05M context window (GPT-5.4 and GPT-5.4 pro), prompts with >272K input tokens are priced at 2x input and 1.5x output for the full session for standard, batch, and flex. Taken from https://developers.openai.com/api/docs/models/gpt-5.4

Anthropic literally don't allow you to use the 1M context anymore on Sonnet and Opus 4.6 without it being billed as extra usage immediately.

I had 4.5 1M before that so they definitely made it worse.

OpenAI at least gives you the option of using your plan for it. Even if it uses it up more quickly.

Re: GPT-5.4

#552

Post by pnexk »

pmarreck wrote: post #354
woadwarrior01 wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, but it's my pet peeve. If you're on iOS/macOS I built a 100% free and privacy-friendly app to get rid of tracking parameters from hundreds of different websites, not just X/Twitter. https://apps.apple.com/us/app/clean-links-qr-code-reader/id6...

So what is your motivation for doing this, incidentally? Can you be explicit about it? I am genuinely curious. Especially when it’s to the point of, you know, nagging/policing people to do it the way you’d prefer, when you could just redirect your router requests from x.com to xcancel.com

Helpful type of nagging for me. Most here would agree they are not a positive aspect of the modern digital experience, calling it out gently without hostility is not bad. It might not be quite self policing but some of that with good reason is not bad for healthy communities IMO.

Re: GPT-5.4

#553

Post by [deleted] »

Marciplan wrote: post #487
nickysielicki wrote: post #29

can anyone compare the $200/mo codex usage limits with the $200/mo claude usage limits? It’s extremely difficult to get a feel for whether switching between the two is going to result in hitting limits more or less often, and it’s difficult to find discussion online about this. In practice, if I buy $200/mo codex, can I basically run 3 codex instances simultaneously in tmux, like I can with claude code pro max, all d…

sure can! One of them stood up to the “Department of War” for favoring your rights, the other did not. Hope that helps!

[deleted]

Re: GPT-5.4

#554

Post by joshvm »

Someone1234 wrote: post #227
tedsanders wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, long context vs compaction is always an interesting tradeoff. More information isn't always better for LLMs, as each token adds distraction, cost, and latency. There's no single optimum for all use cases. For Codex, we're making 1M context experimentally available, but we're not making it the default experience for everyone, as from our testing we think that shorter context plus compaction works best for most p…

That's an interesting point regarding context Vs. compaction. If that's viewed as the best strategy, I'd hope we would see more tools around compaction than just "I'll compact what I want, brace yourselves" without warning. Like, I'd love an optional pre-compaction step, "I need to compact, here is a high level list of my context + size, what should I junk?" Or similar.

Have you tried writing that as a skill? Compaction is just a prompt with a convenient UI to keep you in the same tab. There's no reason you can't ask the model to do that yourself and start a new conversation. You can look up Claude's /compact definition, for reference.

However, in some harnesses the model is given access to the old chat log/"memories", so you'd need a way to provide that. You could compromise by running /compact and pasting the output from your own summarizer (that you ran first, obviously).

Re: GPT-5.4

#556

Post by bottlepalm »

LUmBULtERA wrote: post #375
bottlepalm wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The vast majority of websites you visit don’t have usable APIs and very poor discovery of the those APIs. Screenshots on the other hand are documentation, API, and discovery all in one. And you’d be surprised how little context/tokens screenshots consumer compared to all the back and forth verbose json payloads of APIs

>The vast majority of websites you visit don’t have usable APIs and very poor discovery of the those APIs. I think an important thing here is that a lot of websites/platforms don't want AIs to have direct API access, because they are afraid that AIs would take the customer "away" from the website/platform, making the consumer a customer of the AI rather than a customer of the website/platform. Therefore for AIs to be…

That's true, and it's always been like that, which is why the comment that AI should be using APIs is already dead in the water. In terms of gating a websites to humans by not providing APIs, that is quickly coming to a close.

Re: GPT-5.4

#557

Post by echoangle »

maxo99 wrote: post #549
selcuka wrote: post #536

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

How are the names random?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonnet

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haiku

They dropped the magnum from opus but you could still easily deduce the order of the models just from their names if you know the words.

Re: GPT-5.4

#558

Post by mrcwinn »

prydt wrote: post #71

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

Don't worry, the non-profit should be stepping in at any moment to help fix things up.

Re: GPT-5.4

#559

Post by pizlonator »

pembrook wrote: post #477
creamyhorror wrote: post #223

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.

FWIW, I haven't been using AGENTS.md recently - instead letting the model explore the codebase as needed.

Works great

Re: GPT-5.4

#560

Post by Sohcahtoa82 »

ipsum2 wrote: post #111
yanis_t wrote: post #69

These releases are lacking something. Yes, they optimised for benchmarks, but it’s just not all that impressive anymore. It is time for a product, not for a marginally improved model.

The model was released less than an hour ago, and somehow you've been able to form such a strong opinion about it. Impressive!

GP said "It is time for a product, not for a marginally improved model."

ChatGPT is still just that: Chat.

Meanwhile, Anthropic offers a desktop app with plugins that easily extend the data Claude has access to. Connect it to Confluence, Jira, and Outlook, and it'll tell you what your top priorities are for the day, or write a Powerpoint. Add Github and it can reason about your code and create a design document on Confluence.

OpenAI doesn't have a product the way Anthropic does. ChatGPT might have a great model, but it's not nearly as useful.

Post reply on HN