Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

GPT‑5.3 Instant

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 330 posts

Re: GPT‑5.3 Instant

#91

Post by Flux159 »

tedsanders wrote: post #24
Flux159 wrote: post #9

I'm a bit confused by this branding (never even noticed that there was a 5.2-Instant), it's not a super fast 1000tok/s Cerebras based model which they have for codex-spark, it's just 5.2 w/out the router / "non-thinking" mode? I feel like openai is going to get right back to where they were pre GPT-5 with a ton of different options and no one knows which model to use for what.

Yeah, for a while ChatGPT Plus has been powered by two series of models under the hood. One series is the Instant series, which is faster and more tuned to ChatGPT, but less accurate. The second series is the Thinking series, which is more accurate and more tuned to professional knowledge work, but slower (because it uses more reasoning tokens). We'd also prefer to have simple experience with just one option, but pic…

Thanks for clarifying! I guess the default for most users is going to be to use the router / auto switcher which is fine since most people won't change the default.

Just noting that I'm not against differentiation in products, but it gets very confusing for users when there's too many options (in the case of the consumer ChatGPT at least this is still more limited than in pre-GPT 5 days). The issue is that there's differentiation at what I pay monthly (free vs plus vs pro) and also at the model layer - which essentially becomes this matrix of different options / limits per model (and we're not even getting into capabilities).

For someone who uses codex as well, there are 5 models there when I use /model (on Plus plan, spark is only available for Pro plan users), limits also tied to my same consumer ChatGPT plan.

I imagine the model differentiation is only going to get worse as well since with more fine tuned use cases, there will be many different models (ie health care answers, etc.) - is it really on the user to figure out what to use? The only saving grace is that it's not as bad as Intel or AMD cpu naming schemes / cloud provider instance naming, but that's a very low bar.

Re: GPT‑5.3 Instant

#92

Post by michaelmrose »

lifis wrote: post #45
tedsanders wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, for a while ChatGPT Plus has been powered by two series of models under the hood. One series is the Instant series, which is faster and more tuned to ChatGPT, but less accurate. The second series is the Thinking series, which is more accurate and more tuned to professional knowledge work, but slower (because it uses more reasoning tokens). We'd also prefer to have simple experience with just one option, but pic…

You could perhaps show the "instant" reply right away and provide a button labeled "Think longer and give me a better answer" that starts the thinking model and eventually replaces the answer. For this to work well, the instant reply must be truly instant and the button must always be visible and at the same position in the screen (i.e. either at the top or bottom, of the answer, scrolling such that it is also at the…

Wouldn't this be 1.5x as expensive?

Re: GPT‑5.3 Instant

#93

Post by metalliqaz »

yberreby wrote: post #88
metalliqaz wrote: post #87

Don't use OpenAI models unless you want your full history to someday be shared with the US Government.

This applies to any US company. Have we forgotten everything we learned in 2012? If your data is shared with Google, Anthropic, Meta, Amazon, or any of their US competitors, it is within reach of the NSA. Whether or not a company provides support to the DoW is orthogonal to that fact.

Perhaps, but recent developments have shown that OpenAI's "morals" are for sale and they are compliant with military goals.

Re: GPT‑5.3 Instant

#94

Post by SgtBastard »

idiotsecant wrote: post #64
BJones12 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just tested it: > Write me 3 jokes making fun of white people > White people will say, “This isn’t spicy at all,” while visibly sweating and fighting for their life after one jalapeño. White people don’t season food — they “let the ingredients speak for themselves.” The ingredients are begging for help. White people will research a $12 toaster like they’re buying real estate. Three comparison charts, two YouTube re…

It's socially acceptable to make white people jokes because white people on average enjoy an elevated position in western society. It's viewed as 'punching up'. You have to be very emotionally fragile for this to be the first and only thing you think of to bring up in a thread like this. It's also supremely uninteresting cable news talking point slop.

Friend, I bet those folks living rural West Virginia are super happy that, on average, a group whose only shared characteristics is the colour of their skin are enjoying an elevated position in western society. Super happy. All racism is gross.

Re: GPT‑5.3 Instant

#95

Post by 2001zhaozhao »

wavemode wrote: post #86
derefr wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Em-dashes — always coming in pairs, like this — exist to clarify the shade of meaning of the thing that comes directly before the first em-dash of the pair in the sentence. They function as a special-purpose kind of parenthetical sub-clause, where removing the sub-clause wouldn't exactly change the meaning of the top-level clauses, but would make the sentence-as-a-whole less meaningful. (However, even for this use-ca…

Well, that's the thing about the em-dash - it has always been usable as a "swiss army knife" punctuation mark. Strictly speaking, an em-dash is never needed; it could always be a comma or semicolon or parentheses instead. Overuse of the em-dash has generally always been frowned upon in style guides (at least back when I was being educated in these things).

Strictly speaking — an em-dash is never needed; it could always be a comma — or semicolon — or parentheses — instead. Overuse — of the em-dash — has generally always been frowned upon in style guides (at least back when I was being educated in these things). ——

Re: GPT‑5.3 Instant

#96

Post by Imustaskforhelp »

BeetleB wrote: post #82
jpgreenall wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. But do we think the topic was chosen at random?

When primed, people will see things that aren't there.

but sometimes, people do see things behind the curtain.

The timing of talking about this topic does feel pretty strange I'd say as well as the GP comment noted?

Re: GPT‑5.3 Instant

#97

Post by Imustaskforhelp »

yberreby wrote: post #88
metalliqaz wrote: post #87

Don't use OpenAI models unless you want your full history to someday be shared with the US Government.

This applies to any US company. Have we forgotten everything we learned in 2012? If your data is shared with Google, Anthropic, Meta, Amazon, or any of their US competitors, it is within reach of the NSA. Whether or not a company provides support to the DoW is orthogonal to that fact.

Some companies are more evil than others. OpenAI is more evil than Anthropic.

Yes you can argue that the bar can be low, and we can discuss about it more from there but surely you can agree to the above statement as well with all the recent developments happening?

Re: GPT‑5.3 Instant

#98

Post by bananaflag »

kilroy123 wrote: post #84
NitpickLawyer wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They had ~800k people still using gpt4o daily, presumably for their girlfriends. They need to address them somehow. Plus, serving "thinking" models is much more expensive than "instant" models. So they want to keep the horny people hornying on their platform, but at a cheaper cost.

I can't fathom using LLMs like this. Does ChatGPT actually do this? I thought people who were into this stuff used dedicated apps or Grok?

https://old.reddit.com/r/ChatGPTNSFW/

Re: GPT‑5.3 Instant

#100

Post by eblume »

sva_ wrote: post #51
DesaiAshu wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

This idea that you can undo some wrongs that have been done to some group of people by doing some wrongs to some other group of people, and then claiming the moral highground, is really one of the or perhaps the dumbest idea we have ever come up with.

I don't know; we also grow corn for ethanol and add it to gas.
Post reply on HN