Up until now I only paid LLM subscriptions to Anthropic but I'm going to give ChatGPT a chance when my current subscription runs out next month.
GPT-5.5
871–880 of 1001 posts
Re: GPT-5.5
#872Earlier 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.
Hehe, and Anthropic on the other tab would display "Curing... Almost done thinking at xhigh"
Re: GPT-5.5
#873This model is great at long horizon tasks, and Codex now has heartbeats, so it can keep checking on things. Give it your hardest problem that would take hours with verifiable constraints, you will see how good this is:) *I work at OAI.
Is there any task that actually doesn't require human intervention in-between, even if its just to setup stuff?
Like I will get Opus to make me an app but it will stop in between because I need to setup the db and plug in the API keys and Opus really can't do that on its own yet
Re: GPT-5.5
#874Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I think it's more: when I don't have access to a compiler I am useless. It's better to go for a walk than learn assembly. AI agents turn our high-level language into code, with various hints, much like the compiler.
Compilers are deterministic, LLMs are not. They are not "much like".
Re: GPT-5.5
#875Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
"When you use abstractions you are still deterministically creating something you understand in depth with individual pieces you understand." I always thought the point of abstraction is that you can black-box it via an interface. Understanding it "in depth" is a distraction or obstacle to successful abstraction.
[deleted]
Re: GPT-5.5
#876Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's the path we've been going down for a few years now. The current hedge is that frontier labs are actively competing to win users. The backup hedge is that open source LLMs can provide cheap compute. There will always be economical access to LLMs, but the provider with the best models will be able to charge basically whatever they want and still have buyers.
Open source LLMs aren’t about cost foremost, but stability.
[deleted]
Re: GPT-5.5
#877Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
We are closer to God than AGI. When AGI arrives, it'll be delivered by Santa Claus.
Or may be by Santa Claude
Re: GPT-5.5
#878Because Opus is kind of degrading lately, I said "fuck it" and made a new OAI account and used the month free trial. I put one query into ChatGPT using 5.5 thinking - the frustrating thing was that it did put more effort into getting correct answers rather than Opus, which is just guessing. Specifically, I asked about the coding harness pi, and despite explicitly referring to it as a harness, Opus 4.7, 4.6 and Sonnet 4.6 all fell back to telling me about Aider or OpenCode and ignored my query completely, while ChatGPT said "I'll assume pi is a harness" and then did in fact find the harness.
However the language of ChatGPT is still the same slop as years ago, so many headings, so many emojis, so many "the important thing nobody mentions". 10 paragraphs of text for what should be a two paragraph response. Even with custom instructions (keep answers short and succinct) and using their settings (less list, less emoji, less fluff) it's still NOTICEABLY worse than Claude on base settings.
I've yet to test Codex, will get to that this weekend, but in terms of research or general Q&A I have no idea how anyone could prefer this to Claude. Unfortunately Claude has seemingly stopped giving a fuck about researching entirely.
Re: GPT-5.5
#879I'm conflicted whether I should keep my Claude Max 5x subscription at this point and switch back to GPT/Codex... anyone else in a similar position? I'd rather not be paying for two AI providers and context switching between the two, though I'm having a hard time gauging if Claude Code is still the "cream of the crop" for SWE work. I haven't played around with Codex much.
I switched from CC to Codex a few days ago. I get limited much less and the code quality is similar, so not looking back
CC usage limits and the 5 hour cool downs are what made me realize that I can't depend on this tool in a professional setting.
Re: GPT-5.5
#880These new models consume so many tokens. I’m very satisfied with GPT-5.2 on High. I hope they keep that one for many years