[dead]
Previewing GPT‑5.6 Sol: a next-generation model
781–790 of 797 posts
Re: Previewing GPT‑5.6 Sol: a next-generation model
#782Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're not wrong. But programming isn't something only talented people do.
Really? That doesn't line up with this forum. As a non-software engineer reading this forum it sounds like everyone is basically von Neumann working on Operator algebras and Lattice theory. I assumed that is why the view of LLMs is so negative on here. While Claude seems kind of amazing to me I am not a genius working on Lattice theory like most people here.
Most people overestimate themselves. Everyone deludes themselves into thinking they're talented. And in fact, most people are talented at something.
The problem is this: the moment you think you're talented, you stop growing.
As you know, programming isn't about a single right answer—it's about finding the optimal solution for the moment. What was correct in the past may not be correct now, and because it's tied to hardware, specs change frequently.
And honestly, everyone's workflow is different, so opinions on AI are bound to differ. Arguing over whether it's universally good or bad based on one's own case is just a waste of time. So I just let people think what they want.
True academia and industry aren't something that can be solved by a handful of geniuses. I think an industry that can be supported by the untalented majority is a healthy one.
The media portrays programmers as geniuses who can bring down the world, but that's just media hype. Considering the complexity of modern society, the era where one person can do everything is over. I think the age where AI becomes absolutely necessary is coming.
I believe the programmer's role will shift from reading all of AI's complex code to installing guardrails that the AI code won't go beyond. Of course, a tiny minority of programmers will generate the datasets to feed the AI. I think that minority will be extremely smal
Re: Previewing GPT‑5.6 Sol: a next-generation model
#783[dead]
Re: Previewing GPT‑5.6 Sol: a next-generation model
#784Earlier quoted context omitted.
What plan are you on? It is only available to Pro users.
Plus. No wonder - i suspected this but i couldnt find any docs. Side note, how are you liking Pro? I have really been considering getting Pro recently, but not sure if its more worth to just switch to openrouter. I feel like my usage currently barely outstrips the plus usage limits and Pro would be too much, and using Openrouter by default would mean I would have a lot more leeway to run more random lighter workloads…
I find it to be excellent. I have three Pro subscriptions so I can build stuff 24/7. I only use GPT 5.5 xhigh. Before 5.5 I wasted a lot of time with bugs. I want to make sure that doesn't happen again -- if I can help it.
Re: Previewing GPT‑5.6 Sol: a next-generation model
#785“ Terra has competitive performance to GPT‑5.5 [while being 2x cheaper]…” To me that means “it’s an inferior product but marketing dictates we try and hide that.” And “our most robust safety stack to date. We strengthened protections for higher-risk activity, sensitive cyber requests, and repeated misuse, and spent multiple weeks finding weaknesses, pressure-testing our system, and hardening it against real-world att…
The point of Terra is to be cheaper than the best model while being pretty good. Of course it’s inferior in intelligence.
The best model is 5.6-sol; they are comparing to 5.5 here.
Re: Previewing GPT‑5.6 Sol: a next-generation model
#786Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah...and why would being the same size mean anything ? This is par the course for Open AI. They've always been cheaper and likely smaller than Opus models even when they weren't much if any worse.
> why would being the same size mean anything Because these companies are still 100% scale-pilled, and each new generation of model is bigger than the previous one, even if active parameters (MoE) is growing slower than total parameters. There is also scaling in inference-time compute which adds to the cost just the same. Fable is rumored to use variable compute which will increase the cost for inputs that get routed…
I'm not saying Open AI pricing is entirely unrelated to size/cost. I'm saying why are we assuming that OpenAI is serving say OAI-Opus but at half the price of Anthropic when they could just be serving GPT-5.x which is genuinely near half the cost of Opus at scale.
The official API output tokens cost of GLM-5.2 is like a third of Gemini-3.1-Pro. The model is Open weights so we know it's not just a ploy to grab users at the cost of bleeding money. You can actually serve the model profitably at similar prices.
They have near a billion consumer users every week. Compute efficiency at scale would be at the forefront of any training effort. It makes a lot more sense to me that they have more compute efficient models (even with the scaling) than Anthropic rather than just serving Opus/Fable at half the costs Anthropic are incurring.
Re: Previewing GPT‑5.6 Sol: a next-generation model
#787Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are cyberweapons/cyberattacks "munitions"? if so, then isn't a machine capable of producing those munitions also itself a munition? I don't think you can put this down to "orange man bad" or "regulations", we're dealing with a genuinely groundbreaking technology with clear military applications
> if so, then isn't a machine capable of producing those munitions also itself a munition? You mean, for example, a computer?
Yes... computer chips are already export controlled
Re: Previewing GPT‑5.6 Sol: a next-generation model
#788Easily the most interesting part of this announcement is buried in the second to last paragraph: "We're also launching GPT‑5.6 Sol on Cerebras at up to 750 tokens per second in July, bringing frontier intelligence to customers at unprecedented speed. Access will initially be limited to select customers as we expand capacity." 750 tokens/s on a frontier model is going to be extremely interesting. I doubt this new vers…
That statement gives a lot of insights into the possible model size.
Llama 3.1 405b runs @ ~900t/s: https://www.cerebras.ai/blog/llama-405b-inference
From initial vibe research (which is totally not correct by any means) ~13.5k concurrent streaming clients capacity
Re: Previewing GPT‑5.6 Sol: a next-generation model
#789Earlier quoted context omitted.
> they don’t understand I have not seen any instance of this frequently-made assertion which is at all justified. It seems to rely on a definition of "understand" which is more about spirituality than actual observable evidence (they clearly can comprehend even complex tasks well enough to execute on them, and if you won't call that "understanding", you're playing word games rather than stating an objective fact). Li…
The "it's not X it's Y" where Y qnd X are the same indicates a lack of understanding.
Consider the number of humans I've seen make statements that fit that description (about AI, no less!), I don't think that's a strong argument against it.
Re: Previewing GPT‑5.6 Sol: a next-generation model
#790Earlier quoted context omitted.
> they don’t understand I have not seen any instance of this frequently-made assertion which is at all justified. It seems to rely on a definition of "understand" which is more about spirituality than actual observable evidence (they clearly can comprehend even complex tasks well enough to execute on them, and if you won't call that "understanding", you're playing word games rather than stating an objective fact). Li…
It seems to rely on a definition of "understand" which is more about spirituality than actual observable evidence "Understanding" has enough philosophical leeway in its use to allow at least the possibility of sentience as a prerequisite. This is where the discussion about LLM capabilities becomes genuinely difficult, and dismissing that difficulty as "word games" or "spirituality vs evidence" is not helpful.
Considering that "sentience" has enough "philosophical leeway" that it's just as reasonable to assert that LLMs are sentient (and at extremes, that they have been sentient for years) -- especially if we are, as you suggest, supposed to include any philosophically possible definition -- I don't think that's a meaningful rebuttal. If no one can agree on whether it's sentient, it's bad faith to choose a fringe definition that hands off its definition to such a nebulous term.
In fact, I'd argue that statements about what "is" and "is not" sentient relies on even more spirituality and word games for anything that isn't a terran tetrapod.
For a meaningful -- "helpful" -- discussion on such things, one has to assume that everyone is choosing a definition which is closer to the median usage and relies on not being totally subjective. Furthermore, given the breadth of options, it should be assumed to be a definition which allows which permits the form of the question to be meaningful, rather than begging the question -- if your definition is tautological enough that non-biological entities can't have understanding, you're just expressing dogma rather than having a discussion.
Anything else is bad faith, or assuming bad faith on the part of the participants.