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

851–860 of 1001 posts

Re: GPT-5.5

#851

Post by jurgenburgen »

butlike wrote: post #260
endymi0n wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you guys do anything about GPT‘s motivation? I tried to use GPT-5.4 API (at xhigh) for my OpenClaw after the Anthropic Oauthgate, but I just couldn‘t drag it to do its job. I had the most hilarious dialogues along the lines of „You stopped, X would have been next.“ - „Yeah, I‘m sorry, I failed. I should have done X next.“ - „Well, how about you just do it?“ - „Yep, I really should have done it now.“ - “Do X, righ…

This brings up an interesting philosophical point: say we get to AGI... who's to say it won't just be a super smart underachiever-type? "Hey AGI, how's that cure for cancer coming?" "Oh it's done just gotta...formalize it you know. Big rollout and all that..." I would find it divinely funny if we "got there" with AGI and it was just a complete slacker. Hard to justify leaving it on, but too important to turn it off.

I’ve noticed that cursing and being rude makes the models stop being lazy. We’re in the darkest timeline.

Re: GPT-5.5

#852

Post by wiseowise »

juleiie wrote: post #658
ijeifnekfjekd wrote: post #639

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

Seriously? You really don’t see who wins from this and who doesn’t?

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

Yes, hundreds of thousands lose jobs and a couple of neuro surgeons become multimillionaires.

Okay, I see from the rest of the comment that we understand each other where it goes.

Re: GPT-5.5

#853

Post by athrowaway3z »

endymi0n wrote: post #103
tedsanders wrote: post #19

Just as a heads up, even though GPT-5.5 is releasing today, the rollout in ChatGPT and Codex will be gradual over many hours so that we can make sure service remains stable for everyone (same as our previous launches). You may not see it right away, and if you don't, try again later in the day. We usually start with Pro/Enterprise accounts and then work our way down to Plus. We know it's slightly annoying to have to…

Did you guys do anything about GPT‘s motivation? I tried to use GPT-5.4 API (at xhigh) for my OpenClaw after the Anthropic Oauthgate, but I just couldn‘t drag it to do its job. I had the most hilarious dialogues along the lines of „You stopped, X would have been next.“ - „Yeah, I‘m sorry, I failed. I should have done X next.“ - „Well, how about you just do it?“ - „Yep, I really should have done it now.“ - “Do X, righ…

I've run into this problem as well. Best results I've gotten is to over-explain what the stop criteria are. eg end with a phrase like

> You are done when all steps in ./plan.md are executed and marked as complete or a unforeseen situation requires a user decision.

Also as a side note, asking 5.4 explain why it did something, returns a very low quality response afaict. I would advice against trusting any model's response, but for Opus I at least get a sense it got trained heavily on chats so it knows what it means to 'be a model' and extrapolate on past behavior.

Re: GPT-5.5

#854

Post by a96 »

lexarflash8g wrote: post #595
postalcoder wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I made pelicans at different thinking efforts: https://hcker.news/pelican-low.svg https://hcker.news/pelican-medium.svg https://hcker.news/pelican-high.svg https://hcker.news/pelican-xhigh.svg Someone needs to make a pelican arena, I have no idea if these are considered good or not.

None of them have the pelican's feet placed properly on the pedals -- or the pedals are misrepresented. Cool art style but not physically accurate.

I'm not sure a physically accurate pelican would reach two pedals on a common bicycle. Maybe a model can solve that problem one day.

Re: GPT-5.5

#855

Post by steinvakt2 »

minimaxir wrote: post #24
impulser_ wrote: post #21

What is the reason behind OpenAI being able to release new models very fast? Since Feb when we got Gemini 3.1, Opus 4.6, and GPT-5.3-Codex we have seen GPT-5.4 and GPT-5.5 but only Opus 4.7 and no new Gemini model. Both of these are pretty decent improvements.

Competition.

Can't be just that. There was competition in the GPT-4 era. But we didn't get model drops every month.

Re: GPT-5.5

#856

Post by a96 »

bravoetch wrote: post #354
postalcoder wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I made pelicans at different thinking efforts: https://hcker.news/pelican-low.svg https://hcker.news/pelican-medium.svg https://hcker.news/pelican-high.svg https://hcker.news/pelican-xhigh.svg Someone needs to make a pelican arena, I have no idea if these are considered good or not.

I tried getting it to generate openscad models, which seems much harder. Not had much joy yet with results.

G code and ascii art are also text formats, but seem to be beyond most if not all models.

(There are some that generate 3d models specifically, more in the image generation family than chatbot family.)

Re: GPT-5.5

#857

Post by Mashimo »

ramon156 wrote: post #826
Mashimo wrote: post #803

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use glm and I like it, not they also increased the price to 18 usd /month. I think Kimi and qwen are similar?

Wasn't there a limited offer? I wouldn't call that "increasing the prices"

I think both? Limited offer stopped and price increase. But the point was that is now a similar price to ChatGPT and Claude code, and not 10th of the price.

Re: GPT-5.5

#858

Post by wiseowise »

noosphr wrote: post #549
intuitionist wrote: post #544

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not a Marxian economic expert but this doesn’t make sense to me. Modulo skill atrophy, the big AI model provider can’t capture that surplus value because its customers can just go back to bidding for human labor instead.

The human labor just said: "Losing access to GPT‑5.5 feels like I've had a limb amputated.” How well would an assembly line of quadriplegics work? Also this isn't a Marxist analysis. Underneath all the formulas neo-classical economics makes the same assumptions about labor.

The “human labor” is unnamed shill (if they even exist) from a company that produces AI chips. Let’s not get dramatic here.

Re: GPT-5.5

#859

Post by [deleted] »

jwr wrote: post #850
concinds wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Never thought I'd say this but OpenAI is the 'open' option again. Compared to Anthropic, they always have been. Anthropic has never released any open models. Never released Claude Code's source, willingly (unlike Codex). Never released their tokenizer.

What's "open" about any of these companies? I'm tired of words being misused. We have hoverboards that do not hover, self-driving cars that do not, actually, self-drive, starships that will never fly to the stars, and "open"… I can't even describe what it's used for, except everybody wants to call themselves "open".

[deleted]

Re: GPT-5.5

#860

Post by k12sosse »

wholinator2 wrote: post #312
lambdas wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing a little digital lisdexamfetamine won’t solve

Hmmm, that's an area of study id've never considered before. Digital Psychopharmacology, Artificial Behavioral Systems Engineering. If we accept these things as minds, why not study temporary perturbations of state. We'd need to be saving a much much more complicated state than we are now though right? I wish i had time to read more papers

I think that was an intro to a dj dieselboy set.. beyond the black bassline. Nope, nope. Close though.
Post reply on HN