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

721–730 of 1001 posts

Re: GPT-5.5

#721

Post by tempest_ »

kccqzy wrote: post #582
xg15 wrote: post #513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 o…

I feel like big / old companies thrive on process and are bogged down in bureaucracy.

Sure there is a process to get a library approved, and that abstraction makes you feel better but for the guy who's job it is to approve they are not going to spend an entire day reviewing a lib. The abstraction hides what is essentially a "LGTM" its just that takes a week for someone to check it off their outlook todos.

Maybe your experience is different.

Re: GPT-5.5

#722

Post by laweijfmvo »

gcanyon wrote: post #570

Once upon a time humans had to memorize log tables. Once upon a time humans had to manually advance the spark ignition as their car's engine revved faster. Once upon a time humans had to know the architecture of a CPU to code for it. History is full of instances of humans meeting technology where it was, accommodating for its limitations. We are approaching a point where machines accommodate to our limitations -- it'…

i still don’t think the current generation of AI is building better software than strong humans. it excels at writing code, because a computer will always be faster at generating typo-free code than my fingers, but without expert guidance and oversight the best it can do is on par with what we can.

IMO

Re: GPT-5.5

#724

Post by doug_durham »

Spartan-S63 wrote: post #509
jstummbillig wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. What's the worst potential outcome, assuming that all models get better, more efficient and more abundant (which seems to be the current trend)? The goal of engin…

At some point, because these models are trained on existing data, you cease significant technological advancement--at least in tech (as it relates to programming languages, paradigms, etc). You also deskill an entire group of people to the extent that when an LLM fails to accomplish a task, it becomes nearly impossible to actually accomplish it manually. It's learned-helplessness on a large scale.

Do you think that there has been technologic advancement in coding in the last 40 years? Programming languages and “paradigms” are crutches to help humans attempt to handle complexity. They are affordances, not a property of nature.

Re: GPT-5.5

#725

Post by dcre »

an0malous wrote: post #86
sosodev wrote: post #66

I hope the industry starts competing more on highest scores with lowest tokens like this. It's a win for everybody. It means the model is more intelligent, is more efficient to inference, and costs less for the end user. So much bench-maxxing is just giving the model a ton of tokens so it can inefficiently explore the solution space.

The premise of the trillion dollars in AI investments is not that it’ll be as good as it currently is but cheaper. It’s AGI or bust at this point.

Why is AGI required to make the investments work out?

Re: GPT-5.5

#726

Post by doug_durham »

Jtarii wrote: post #449
jstummbillig wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. What's the worst potential outcome, assuming that all models get better, more efficient and more abundant (which seems to be the current trend)? The goal of engin…

>What's the worst potential outcome, assuming that all models get better, more efficient and more abundant Complexity steadily rises, unencumbered by the natural limit of human understanding, until technological collapse, either by slow decay or major systems going down with increasing frequency.

Existing software is already beyond the limits of human understanding.

Re: GPT-5.5

#727

Post by reactordev »

nwienert wrote: post #662
reactordev wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. I signed up for 5x max for a month to push it and instead it pushed back. I cancelled my subscription. It either half-assed the implementation or began parroting back “You’re right!” instead of doing what it’s asked to do. On one occasion it flat out said it couldn’t complete the task even though I had MCP and skills setup to help it, it still refused. Not a safety check but a “I’m unable to figure out what to…

With one paragraph in your agents.md it's fixed, just admonish it to be proactive, decisive, and persistent.

If only…

I literally had to write a wake up routine.

https://github.com/gabereiser/morning-routine

Re: GPT-5.5

#728

Post by bamboozled »

drusepth wrote: post #718
_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…

> It's literally higher leverage for me to go for a walk if Claude goes down than to write code because if I come back refreshed and Claude is working an hour later then I'll make more progress than mentally wearing myself out reading a bunch of LLM generated code trying to figure out how to solve the problem manually. Taking more breaks and "not working" during the work day sounds like something we should probably b…

This was always the undelivered promise of "tech" in my opinion. I remember seeing the Apple advertisement from the 80s (??) when a guy gets a computer and then basically spends his afternoon chilling.

Some how I've found myself living in a fairly rural place, and while farming can be hard, I don't want to downplay the effort of it, the type of farming people do around me is fairly chill / carefree. They work hard but they finish at 3pm and log off and don't think about work. Much o my career is just getting crushed by long hours, tight deadlines, and missing out on events because even though my job has always been automation focused, there is just so much to automate.

Re: GPT-5.5

#729

Post by subhobroto »

cutler wrote: post #653
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…

Maybe people will finally take Marx seriously.

A lot of people already did. All their children and descendants now are staunch capitalists because they saw first hand the horrors of communism.

I am from India and have friends who are immigrants from Russia, China and Cuba. We don't take lightly to being lectured about communism. We didn't move to the U.S., the bastion of capitalism, because communism had worked well for our grandfathers and parents and continues to do wonders for its society.

Re: GPT-5.5

#730

Post by greenavocado »

tpurves wrote: post #229
jfkimmes wrote: post #122

Everyone talked about the marketing stunt that was Anthropic's gated Mythos model with an 83% result on CyberGym. OpenAI just dropped GPT 5.5, which scores 82% and is open for anybody to use. I recommend anybody in offensive/defensive cybersecurity to experiment with this. This is the real data point we needed - without the hype! Never thought I'd say this but OpenAI is the 'open' option again.

The real 'hype' was that the oh-snap realization that Open AI would absolutely release a competitive model to Mythos within weeks of Anthropic announcing there's, and that Sam would not gate access to it. So the panic was that the cyber world had only a projected 2 weeks to harden all these new zero days before Sam would inevitably create open season for blackhats to discover and exploit a deluge of zero-days.

The GPT-5.5 API endpoint started to block me after I escalated with ever more aggressive use of rizin, radare2, and ghidra to confirm correct memory management and cleanup in error code branches when working with a buggy proprietary 3rd party SDK. After I explained myself more clearly it let me carry on. Knock on wood.

So there is a safety model watching your behavior for these kinds of things.

Post reply on HN