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

GPT-5.3-Codex

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

601–610 of 634 posts

Re: GPT-5.3-Codex

#601

Post by rapind »

vidarh wrote: post #581
rapind wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe some day, but as a claude code user it makes enough pretty serious screw ups, even with a very clearly defined plan, that I review everything it produces. You might be able to get away without the review step for a bit, but eventually (and not long) you will be bitten.

Reviewing what it produces once it thinks it has met the acceptance criteria and the test suite passes is very different from wasting time babysitting every tiny change.

True, and that's usually what I'm doing now, but to be honest I'm also giving all of it's code at least a cursory glance.

Some of the things it occasionally does:

- Ignores conventions (even when emphasized in the CLAUDE.md)

- Decides to just not implement tests if gets spins out on them too much (it tells you, but only as it happens and that scrolls by pretty quick)

- Writes badly performing code (N+1)

- Does more than you asked (in a bad way, changing UIs or adding cruft)

- Makes generally bad assumptions

I'm not trying to be overly negative, but in my experience to date, you still need to babysit it. I'm interested though in the idea of using multiple models to have them perform independent reviews to at least flag spots that could use human intervention / review.

Re: GPT-5.3-Codex

#602

Post by retinaros »

_zoltan_ wrote: post #297
ghosty141 wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm personally 100% convinced (assuming prices stay reasonable) that the Codex approach is here to stay. Having a human in the loop eliminates all the problems that LLMs have and continously reviewing small'ish chunks of code works really well from my experience. It saves so much time having Codex do all the plumbing so you can focus on the actual "core" part of a feature. LLMs still (and I doubt that changes) can't…

I'm personally 100% convinced of the opposite, that it's a waste of time to steer them. we know now that agentic loops can converge given the proper framing and self-reflectiveness tools.

good luck.

Re: GPT-5.3-Codex

#603

Post by phdlalala »

janalsncm wrote: post #315
rahulyc wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but also you'll never have any early evidence of the Foom until the Foom itself happens.

If only General Relativity had such an ironclad defense of being as unfalsifiable as Foom Hypothesis is. We could’ve avoided all of the quantum physics nonsense.

https://zenodo.org/records/18498514 GR is nonsense!

Re: GPT-5.3-Codex

#604

Post by iwanttoread »

llmslave wrote: post #309
nananana9 wrote: post #173

I've been listening to the insane 100x productivity gains you all are getting with AI and "this new crazy model is a real game changer" for a few years now, I think it's about time I asked: Can you guys point me ton a single useful, majority LLM-written, preferably reliable, program that solves a non-trivial problem that hasn't been solved before a bunch of times in publicly available code?

baffled that people are still suspicious of ai coding models

[dead]

Re: GPT-5.3-Codex

#605

Post by iwanttoread »

beernet wrote: post #181
nananana9 wrote: post #173

I've been listening to the insane 100x productivity gains you all are getting with AI and "this new crazy model is a real game changer" for a few years now, I think it's about time I asked: Can you guys point me ton a single useful, majority LLM-written, preferably reliable, program that solves a non-trivial problem that hasn't been solved before a bunch of times in publicly available code?

Can you point me to a human written program an LLM cannot write? And no, just answering with a massively large codebase does not count because this issue is temporary. Some people just hate progress.

[dead]

Re: GPT-5.3-Codex

#606

Post by iwanttoread »

mrcwinn wrote: post #451
nananana9 wrote: post #173

I've been listening to the insane 100x productivity gains you all are getting with AI and "this new crazy model is a real game changer" for a few years now, I think it's about time I asked: Can you guys point me ton a single useful, majority LLM-written, preferably reliable, program that solves a non-trivial problem that hasn't been solved before a bunch of times in publicly available code?

No, but I have seen privately available code that matches this description.

[dead]

Re: GPT-5.3-Codex

#607

Post by iwanttoread »

trilogic wrote: post #22

When 2 multi billion giants advertise same day, it is not competition but rather a sign of struggle and survival. With all the power of the "best artificial intelligence" at your disposition, and a lot of capital also all the brilliant minds, THIS IS WHAT YOU COULD COME UP WITH? Interesting

[dead]

Re: GPT-5.3-Codex

#608

Post by Sn0wCoder »

cheriot wrote: post #498

Page me when codex can run the right version of node. Are we all changing the system node version to match the current project again? [shell_environment_policy] inherit = "all" experimental_use_profile = true [shell_environment_policy.set] NVM_DIR = "[redacted]" PATH = "[redacted]"

If you are already using Volta in your project Codex will use the correct version assuming you are running in the same directory as your .json file and the json file has the” volta”:{ “node”: “xx.x.x”, “npm”: “xx.x.x”} configured. Personally use a Dockerfile to setup the container with volta installed. Need to set up Volta and configure at least one version of Node then install Codex in the docker. One caveat is you need to update codex with the initial version of node assuming it’s not the same as your project. If you are using one image per project you should never run into this but I have been using one image and firing up a container for each project, so it was great to see Codex able to use the correct version configured for the project via Volta.

From other comments sounds like Codex using mise for internal tools can cause issues but not sure that is 100% Codex fault if the project is not already defining the node/npm version in the json “engines” entry. If it’s ignoring that entry then I guess this is a valid complaint, but not sure how Codex is supposed to guess which version of tools to use for different projects.

Would you mind adding more details as to the exact setup where Codex is using the wrong version?

Re: GPT-5.3-Codex

#609

Post by mi_lk »

Rperry2174 wrote: post #188

Whats interesting to me is that these gpt-5.3 and opus-4.6 are diverging philosophically and really in the same way that actual engineers and orgs have diverged philosophically With Codex (5.3), the framing is an interactive collaborator: you steer it mid-execution, stay in the loop, course-correct as it works. With Opus 4.6, the emphasis is the opposite: a more autonomous, agentic, thoughtful system that plans deepl…

It’s the opposite way

Re: GPT-5.3-Codex

#610

Post by generallyjosh »

bcarv wrote: post #548
IMTDb wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A significant portion of engineering time is now spent ensuring that yes, the LLM does know about all of that. This context can be surfaced through skills, MCP, connectors, RAG over your tools, etc. Companies are also starting to reshape their entire processes to ensure this information can be properly and accurately surfaced. Most are still far from completing that transformation, but progress tends to happen slowly…

[flagged]

All we can do is try our best to look at the world with clear eyes, and think about where the industry's going over the next couple years

Not how we want things to be, but how they actually are and will be

I don't think AI for programming is a passing fad

Post reply on HN