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

GPT-5.6

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

611–620 of 1001 posts

Re: GPT-5.6

#611

Post by tomComb »

postalcoder wrote: post #27
Syntaf wrote: post #6

Ok long time Claude Code user here; lately I've started to realize there's other great models out there I should be trying, but I'm hesitant to leave Claude Code behind for something new. What's the consensus today on codex vs claude code, does it really matter anymore?

There is so much less drama involved with the Codex world. You don't realize how oppressive CC is until you've escaped it. Outages, weird restrictions, degradation, accelerated usage, etc etc etc.

Um, the 'codex world' is the OpenAI world and there is a ton of drama and product confusion there!

Anthropic has certainly had some drama inflicted on them by the US administration, but otherwise they have just had heads down and executed with great focus. That is why they have succeeded.

Re: GPT-5.6

#612

Post by rnewme »

aroman wrote: post #492
ryan_n wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Genuine question/not a critique-are you actually reviewing all that code or just sending it and hoping for the best? I just can't imagine someone is reading/reviewing that much code every day, but maybe I'm wrong?

Like before AI, the scrutiny varies with the sensitivity of the area being edited. Simple UI change? I do an AI review, but otherwise neither read nor write the code. The models are good enough they write better UI code than me, 9 out of 10 times. Not always the more idiomatic, but usually safer and more correct. Change to our core data plane? I might spend 2-3 times more effort reviewing it than before AI. Yes, I go…

What does your workflow look like tool wise? Are you still using IDE?

Re: GPT-5.6

#613

Post by Kerbonut »

Syntaf wrote: post #6

Ok long time Claude Code user here; lately I've started to realize there's other great models out there I should be trying, but I'm hesitant to leave Claude Code behind for something new. What's the consensus today on codex vs claude code, does it really matter anymore?

Claude Code is not the model, it's the harness. You can use any model you want with Claude Code to varying degrees of success. I use Qwen3.6-27b daily with Claude Code as an example.

Re: GPT-5.6

#614

Post by semiquaver »

silksowed wrote: post #318
arizen wrote: post #37

"GPT‑5.6 delivers a step change in design judgment. With only high-level direction, GPT‑5.6 creates tasteful, ergonomic, and functional interfaces. Its stronger computer-use capabilities let it inspect and refine the rendered result—not just generate the underlying code or content—so it can catch visual and functional issues and apply finishing touches before handing the work back." This one is really promising, as i…

Computer-use is a big limitation that my 2015 Macbook Pro cannot handle. I find the Codex cli says it looks at the end output artifact but so often it fails to refine it into acceptable form. If it could use my computer screen and visual inputs for review, it might be able to actually design documents/powerpoints/etc. I'm juicing everything I can out of the 11 year old laptop and I'm honestly impressed at what it can…

How dare you point out that 2015 is 11 years ago.

Re: GPT-5.6

#615

Post by azuanrb »

HarHarVeryFunny wrote: post #584
jrflo wrote: post #520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What destructive actions are you afraid of in particular? Honestly the models are pretty smart, I let the agents go --yolo and nothing bad has ever happened (yet) that couldn't be solved with git.

I'm not concerned about the code it's working on, but rather anything else - modifying files outside of the project dir (e.g. incorrect tool call), modifying system configuration, doing something bad on the internet, etc.

It is a valid concern but I've been running yolo mode since the inception, using Claude and now Codex. I'm not bragging or anything, since I'm feeding my own curiosity too, trying to answer what's the worst that could've happened? So far, nothing catastrophic that I recall.

Re: GPT-5.6

#616

Post by small_model »

Syntaf wrote: post #6

Ok long time Claude Code user here; lately I've started to realize there's other great models out there I should be trying, but I'm hesitant to leave Claude Code behind for something new. What's the consensus today on codex vs claude code, does it really matter anymore?

Now we have various Opus+ level models (Opus/Fable, Grok 4.5, GPT 5.6) I prefer to focus on price/speed and harness as models are all generally good enough for coding. (Fable is overkill for 90% of work but is still level above). So I use Grok Build with 4.5 as its VERY fast and cheap, Codex is next best for me with sol/lunar 5.6. and Claude Code Fable for the 10% of tasks that need that level of reasoning. However I find Claude Code harness responsiveness much less than other two (all TUI versions) I wish they would fix this.

Re: GPT-5.6

#617

Post by epolanski »

hk__2 wrote: post #142
nilkn wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Codex has arguably been better than Claude Code for months now, but it's flown under the radar because it just didn't capture the same viral marketing effect and OpenAI in general has had more optics / PR issues than Anthropic amongst the online developer crowd. I use the word "better" not in the sense that the underlying GPT models are fundamentally smarter or more intelligent, but rather that as a product Codex is…

I’d argue the opposite. I’ve switched back and forth from one to the other and Opus/Fable has been constantly better than any GPT in my daily work. It’s a bit slower but it does the things right, with as little code as possible, some comments where needed. Codex is faster but you always have to correct it because it got something wrong; it writes tons of code ("let me add a small helper") with obvious comments.

[dead]

Re: GPT-5.6

#618

Post by avarun »

daveguy wrote: post #603
tshaddox wrote: post #485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you conceptualize this as “there is an appropriate amount of brevity for each situation” then it would be expected for a better model to use different amounts of brevity if it gets better at determining the appropriate amount. My view is that popular models by default output wildly excessive amounts of prose for nearly every use case, so if this changes in a new model that’s a pure win.

The models don't get better, except when a new one is released. Their performance depends solely on the model training before release and how well you curate the context you feed it. That's it. Contrary to popular belief these things are not intelligent.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the comment you replied to.

Re: GPT-5.6

#619

Post by kylecordes »

minimaxir wrote: post #26

The developer's guide ( https://developers.openai.com/api/docs/guides/latest-model ) has some interesting semantic tips for using the model: > Intent understanding: GPT-5.6 can better infer the user’s underlying goal and intended level of work without you specifying every step. Continue to state important constraints, approval boundaries, and success criteria explicitly. > Original image detail: GPT-5.6 preserves the…

I wonder if it will do any better than past versions when one begs and pleads for it to get a job done using a concise, modest amount of code (as an expert human developer might), rather than responding to all prompts by shoveling in a large amount of code.

Re: GPT-5.6

#620

Post by epolanski »

erichocean wrote: post #164
Syntaf wrote: post #6

Ok long time Claude Code user here; lately I've started to realize there's other great models out there I should be trying, but I'm hesitant to leave Claude Code behind for something new. What's the consensus today on codex vs claude code, does it really matter anymore?

I use Claude for planning, writing CRs, and code review. Codex writes all of the code, no exceptions. Works great, especially when you ask Claude to break up large CRs into roughly 10 minutes of Codex work each.

I do exactly the opposite.
Post reply on HN