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

651–660 of 1001 posts

Re: GPT-5.5

#651

Post by llbbdd »

yoda7marinated wrote: post #603
eitally wrote: post #584

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Could you elaborate on your last point please? What level of AI comfort are hiring managers looking for? And what tends to be a red flag?

The last job I got (couple months ago), the main technical interview was a bring-your-own-tools pair programming style interview, AI included, where they gave me a repo and a README detailing some desired features to add and bugs to fix. I didn't write a single line of code myself; I talked through my thought process and asked questions about what to consider from a technical and product perspective, while steering Claude through breaking the tasks into independent plans, reviewing the plans, coaching it to add specific tests, reviewing and iterating the tests, and steering it while it wrote the code. I got an offer the next morning.

Apparently at least one of the other candidates just tried to get Claude to 1-shot the whole thing, which went off the rails, and left him unable to make progress.

Based on my sample size of 1, the expectation right now is absolutely that you can leverage these tools to speed up your workflow, but if you try to offload the entire thing to a single hands-off prompt it leaves them justifiably wondering why they should hire you to do something they can do themselves.

Re: GPT-5.5

#652

Post by Night_Thastus »

oezi wrote: post #522
Night_Thastus wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is entirely expected. The low prices of using LLMs early on was totally and completely unsustainable. The companies providing such services were (and still are) burning money by the truckload. The hope is to get a big userbase who eventually become dependent on it for their workflow, then crank up the price until it finally becomes profitable. The price for all models by all companies will continue to go up, and…

I recently looked at this a bit but came away with the impression that at least on API pricing the models should be very profitable considering primarily the electricity cost. Subscriptions and free plans are the thing that can easily burn money.

The physical buildouts and massive R+D spending is the big part.

Re: GPT-5.5

#653

Post by cutler »

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…

Maybe people will finally take Marx seriously.

Re: GPT-5.5

#654

Post by FuckButtons »

mikestorrent wrote: post #537
noosphr wrote: post #528

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 am still trying to figure out the business model of open weights. Like... it's wonderful that there are open LLMs, super happy about it, good for everyone, but why are there these? What is the advantage to their companies to release them?

I mean, this is straight out of chinas playbook, it should not be surprising that China is making an inferior derivative product at an artificially lower price point: state subsidies to massively drive up internal scale and supply chains leading to artificially lower priced goods which then suffocate the competition has lead to *gestures vaguely at everything* being made in china.

Re: GPT-5.5

#655

Post by jen729w »

ofjcihen wrote: post #470
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…

I see this comparison made constantly and for me it misses the mark. When you use abstractions you are still deterministically creating something you understand in depth with individual pieces you understand. When you vibe something you understand only the prompt that started it and whether or not it spits out what you were expecting. Hence feeling lost when you suddenly lose access to frontier models and take a look…

There's a false dichotomy here between 'deterministic creation' and 'vibing'.

I use Claude all day. It has written, under my close supervision¹, the majority of my new web app. As a result I estimate the process took 10x less time than had I not used Claude, and I estimate the code to be 5x better quality (as I am a frankly mediocre developer).

But I understand what the code does. It's just Astro and TypeScript. It's not magic. I understand the entire thing; not just 'the prompt that started it'.

¹I never fire-and-forget. I prompt-and-watch. Opus 4.7 still needs to be monitored.

Re: GPT-5.5

#656

Post by blackqueeriroh »

noosphr wrote: post #532
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…

A library is deterministic. LLMs are not. That we let a generation of software developers rot their brains on js frameworks is finally coming back to bite us. We can build infinite towers of abstraction on top of computers because they always give the same results. LLMs by comparison will always give different results. I've seen it first hand when a $50,000 LLM generated (but human guided) code base just stops workin…

Libraries are not deterministic. CPUs aren’t deterministic. There are margins of error among all things.

The fact that people who claim to be software developers (let alone “engineers”) say this thing as if it is a fundamental truism is one of the most maladaptive examples of motivated reasoning I have ever had the misfortune of coming across.

Re: GPT-5.5

#657

Post by noosphr »

kjshsh123 wrote: post #623
noosphr wrote: post #528

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The labor theory of value hasn't been considered correct in nearly a century.

If you want the neoclassical version:

What happens when there is an oligopoly in the supply of labor?

Same answer. Nothing good for the consumers of labor.

Re: GPT-5.5

#658

Post by juleiie »

ijeifnekfjekd wrote: post #639
matheusmoreira wrote: post #612

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is our one chance to reach the fabled post-scarcity society. If we fail at this now, we'll end up in a totalitarian cyberpunk dystopia instead.

What? In what way does companies becoming dependent on AI chatbots will solve the world-spanning problem of resource scarcity? The hell?

The idea is that cheap and readily available and upgradeable intelligence is going to massively increase our purchasing power and what everyone can order for the same cost basically.

If artificial doctors are cents on hour then you can see how that changes our behaviors and level of life.

But on the other hand from the other direction there is a wage decrease incoming from increased competition at the same time. What happens if these two forces clash? Will cheap labour allow us to buy anything for pennies or will it just make us unable to make a single penny?

In my view the labour will fundamentally shift with great pain and personal tragedies to the areas that are not replaceable by AI (because no one wants to watch robots play chess). Such as sports, entertainment and showmanship. Handcrafted goods. Arts. Attention based economy. Self advertisement. Digital prostitution in a very broad sense.

However before it gets there it will be a great deal of strife and turmoil that could plunge the world into dark ages for a while at least. It is unlikely for our somewhat politically rigid society to adapt without great deal of pain. Additionally I am not sure if hypothetical future attention based society could be a utopia. You could have to mount cameras in your house so other people see you at all times for amusement just to have any money at all. We will probably forever need to sell something to someone and I am unsettled by ideas what can we sell if we cannot sell our hard work.

Someone who sees the roads ahead should now make preparations at government level for this shock but it will come too fast and with people at the steering wheel that don’t exactly care.

Re: GPT-5.5

#659

Post by inquirerGeneral »

ijeifnekfjekd wrote: post #639
matheusmoreira wrote: post #612

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is our one chance to reach the fabled post-scarcity society. If we fail at this now, we'll end up in a totalitarian cyberpunk dystopia instead.

What? In what way does companies becoming dependent on AI chatbots will solve the world-spanning problem of resource scarcity? The hell?

[dead]

Re: GPT-5.5

#660

Post by Culonavirus »

erdaniels wrote: post #517
Schlagbohrer wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's amazing that the default did that much in just 39 "reasoning tokens" (no idea what a reasoning token is but that's still shockingly few tokens)

If you don't know what a reasoning token is, then how can 39 be considered shockingly few?

It's less than 67, duh.
Post reply on HN