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

891–900 of 1001 posts

Re: GPT-5.5

#891

Post by corobo »

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…

Oh no they gave GPT ADHD

Re: GPT-5.5

#893

Post by RayVR »

My first experience with 5.5 via ChatGPT was immensely disappointing. It was a massive reduction in quality compared to 5.4, which already had issues.

Re: GPT-5.5

#895

Post by azan_ »

khutorni wrote: post #818

> 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.” That's a wild statement to put into your announcement. Are LLM providers now openly bragging about our collective dependency on their models?

> That's a wild statement to put into your announcement. Are LLM providers now openly bragging about our collective dependency on their models?

It's normal that company brags how good their product is, I really don't see what's wild about this statement.

Re: GPT-5.5

#896

Post by holoduke »

dataviz1000 wrote: post #287
astlouis44 wrote: post #9

A playable 3D dungeon arena prototype built with Codex and GPT models. Codex handled the game architecture, TypeScript/Three.js implementation, combat systems, enemy encounters, HUD feedback, and GPT‑generated environment textures. Character models, character textures, and animations were created with third-party asset-generation tools The game that this prompt generated looks pretty decent visually. A big part of th…

LLM models can not do spacial reasoning. I haven't tried with GPT, however, Claude can not solve a Rubik Cube no matter how much I try with prompt engineering. I got Opus 4.6 to get ~70% of the puzzle solved but it got stuck. At $20 a run it prohibitively expensive. The point is if we can prompt an LLM to reason about 3 dimensions, we likely will be able to apply that to math problems which it isn't able to solve cur…

I bet I can even do it with the smallest gemma 4 model using a prompt of max 500 characters.

Re: GPT-5.5

#898

Post by embedding-shape »

khutorni wrote: post #818

> 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.” That's a wild statement to put into your announcement. Are LLM providers now openly bragging about our collective dependency on their models?

A company (or person working for a company) claiming "I/Person X now cannot live without product Y" must be as old as marketing itself.

Re: GPT-5.5

#899

Post by damnitbuilds »

Woop woop !

Now, after all this time, this must shurely be the release that does all software developers out of a job ?

Or has Dirty Sam being caught lying, again ?

Cos I've still got a programming job, and GPT can't do it for shit.

Re: GPT-5.5

#900

Post by gbacon »

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.

Unlike Jevons, [Carl] Menger [(1840–1921)] did not believe that goods provide “utils,” or units of utility. Rather, he wrote, goods are valuable because they serve various uses whose importance differs. For example, the first pails of water are used to satisfy the most important uses, and successive pails are used for less and less important purposes.

Menger used this insight to resolve the diamond-water paradox that had baffled Adam Smith (see marginalism). He also used it to refute the labor theory of value. Goods acquire their value, he showed, not because of the amount of labor used in producing them, but because of their ability to satisfy people’s wants. Indeed, Menger turned the labor theory of value on its head. If the value of goods is determined by the importance of the wants they satisfy, then the value of labor and other inputs of production (he called them “goods of a higher order”) derive from their ability to produce these goods. Mainstream economists still accept this theory, which they call the theory of “derived demand.”

Menger used his “subjective theory of value” to arrive at one of the most powerful insights in economics: both sides gain from exchange. People will exchange something they value less for something they value more. Because both trading partners do this, both gain. This insight led him to see that middlemen are highly productive: they facilitate transactions that benefit those they buy from and those they sell to. Without the middlemen, these transactions either would not have taken place or would have been more costly.

https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Menger.html

Post reply on HN