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

581–590 of 1001 posts

Re: GPT-5.5

#581

Post by nubg »

pzo wrote: post #181
puppystench wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For API usage, GPT-5.5 is 2x the price of GPT-5.4, ~4x the price of GPT-5.1, and ~10x the price of Kimi-2.6. Unfortunately I think the lesson they took from Anthropic is that devs get really reliant and even addicted on coding agents, and they'll happily pay any amount for even small benefits.

On top of that I noticed just right now after updating macos dekstop codex app, I got again by default set speed to 'fast' ('about 1.5x faster with increased plan usage'). They really want you to burn more tokens.

wow wait so it wasn't just me leaving it on from an old session?

sounds like criminal fraud to me tbh

Re: GPT-5.5

#582

Post by kccqzy »

xg15 wrote: post #513
sharts wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Would one be uneasy about calling a library to do stuff than manually messing around with pointers and malloc()? The irony is that the neverending stream of vulnerabilities in 3rd-party dependencies (and lately supply-chain attacks) increasingly show that we should be uneasy. We could never quite answer the question about who is responsible for 3rd-party code that's deployed inside an application: Not the 3rd-party…

> because not having to review the library code is the whole point.

That’s just not true at bigger companies that actually care about security rather than pretending to care about security. At my current and last employer, someone needs to review the code before using third-party code. The review is probably not enough to catch subtle bugs like those in the Underhanded C Contest, but at least a general architecture of the library is understood. Oh, and it helps that the two companies were both founded in the twentieth century. Modern startups aren’t the same.

Re: GPT-5.5

#583

Post by horiap »

operatingthetan wrote: post #175
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?

We know they cost much more than this for OpenAI. Assume prices will continue to climb until they are making money.

How do we know that? There is a large gap between API pricing for SOTA models and similarly sized OSS models hosted by 3rd party providers.

Sure, they’re distilled and should be cheaper to run but at the same time, these hosting providers do turn a margin on these given it’s their core business, unless they do it out of the kindness of their heart.

So it’s hard for me to imagine these providers are losing money on API pricing.

Re: GPT-5.5

#584

Post by eitally »

_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 have found something similar. I am easily distractible and if I don't have a written task backlog in front of me at all times, I find that when Claude is spinning I'll stop being productive. This is disconcerting for a number of reasons. Overall, I think training young people & new hires on agentic workflows -- and how to use agentic "human augmentation" productivity systems is critical. If it doesn't happen, that same couple of classes that lost academic progress during covid are going to suffer a double-whammy of being unprepared for workplace expectations.

Fwiw, I haven't spoken with any management-level colleague in the past 9 months who hasn't noted that asking about AI-comfort & usage is a key interview topic. For any role type, business or technical.

Re: GPT-5.5

#585

Post by RALaBarge »

TacticalCoder wrote: post #523
gck1 wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Start building your own liteweight "harness" that does things you need. Ignore all functionality of clients like CC or Codex and just implement whatever you start missing in your harness. You can replace pretty much everything - skills system, subagents, etc with just tmux and a simple cli tool that the official clients can call. Oh and definitely disable any form of "memory" system. Essentially, treat all tooling th…

> You can replace pretty much everything - skills system, subagents, etc with just tmux and a simple cli tool that the official clients can call. I'm very interest by this. Can you go a bit more into details? ATM for example I'm running Claude Code CLI in a VM on a server and I use SSH to access it. I don't depend on anything specific to Anthropic. But it's still a bit of a pain to "switch" to, say, Codex. How would…

Check out github.com/ralabarge/beigebox -- OSS AI Harness, started as a way to save all of my data but has agentic features, MCP server, point it at any endpoint (or use any front end with it as well, transparent middleware)

So far what I am finding is that you just get the basics working and then use the tool and inference to improve the tool.

Re: GPT-5.5

#586

Post by vessenes »

mikepurvis wrote: post #275
endymi0n wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you guys do anything about GPT‘s motivation? I tried to use GPT-5.4 API (at xhigh) for my OpenClaw after the Anthropic Oauthgate, but I just couldn‘t drag it to do its job. I had the most hilarious dialogues along the lines of „You stopped, X would have been next.“ - „Yeah, I‘m sorry, I failed. I should have done X next.“ - „Well, how about you just do it?“ - „Yep, I really should have done it now.“ - “Do X, righ…

Reminds me a lot of the Lena short story, about uploaded brains being used for "virtual image workloading": > MMAcevedo's demeanour and attitude contrast starkly with those of nearly all other uploads taken of modern adult humans, most of which boot into a state of disorientation which is quickly replaced by terror and extreme panic. Standard procedures for securing the upload's cooperation such as red-washing, blue-…

That story changed my mind on uploading a connectome. Super dark, super brilliant.

Re: GPT-5.5

#587

Post by nubg »

kuatroka wrote: post #432
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?

Not really a big problem. Switch to KIMI, Qwen, GLM. You’ll get 95% quality of GPT or Anthropic for a 10th of a price. I feel like the real dependency is more mental, more of a habit but if you actually dip your toes outside OpenAI, Anthropic, Gemini from time to time, you realise that the actual difference in code is not huge if prompted in a good way. Maybe you’ll have to tell it to do something twice and it won’t…

God I hope this is true.

Where can i find up to date resources on open source models for coding?

Re: GPT-5.5

#588

Post by chrismarlow9 »

_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 use local models on a Mac mini for most things and fall back to the hosted ones when they can't get the job done. Of course you have to break the work into smaller pieces yourself that a local model can understand. One good side effect of this is that you end up actually learning the code and how it's structured.

Re: GPT-5.5

#589

Post by noosphr »

bloppe wrote: post #574
noosphr wrote: post #545

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The majority are released by socialists, and by socialist I mean the People's Republic of China. Which everyone seems to forget is a socialist country working towards world communism. They are a prestige propaganda tool on par with the space race. On top of that they insert a subtle pro-socialist bias in everything they touch. Ask deepseek about the US economic system for a blatant example. Now think what something a…

> Which everyone seems to forget is a socialist country working towards world communism. It's easy to forget because they actually built an incredibly vibrant capitalist economy.

They build an incredibly vibrant _market_ economy with no property rights and very little due process.

Imagine if Musk was disappeared during the Biden presidency into a diversity camp and came out looking like Dr. Frank-N-Furter and instituted mandatory LGBT struggle sessions at twitter.

This is what they did to Jack Ma: https://www.forbes.com/sites/georgecalhoun/2021/06/24/what-r...

Re: GPT-5.5

#590

Post by _alternator_ »

noosphr wrote: post #528
_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…

LLMs upend a few centuries of labor theory. The current market is predicated on the assumption that labor is atomic and has little bargaining power (minus unions). While capital has huge bargaining power and can effectively put whatever price it wants on labor (in markets where labor is plentiful, which is most of them). What happens to a company used to extracting surplus value from labor when the labor is provided…

I was really confused by this comment, but I don't think it's just because of the Marxist analysis of the situation ('surplus value' of labor etc).

What's really confusing is the claim that there's already a huge labor surplus (so capital controls wages); wouldn't LLMs making labor less important be reinforcing the trend, not upending it?

Not saying I agree one way or the other, just want to get the argument straight.

Post reply on HN