$30/M Input and $180/M Output Tokens is nuts. Ridiculous expensive for not that great bump on intelligence when compared to other models.
Price
Input:
$2.50 / 1M tokens
Cached input:
$0.25 / 1M tokens
Output:
$15.00 / 1M tokens
GPT-5.4
91–100 of 868 posts
Re: GPT-5.4
#92"GPT‑5.4 interprets screenshots of a browser interface and interacts with UI elements through coordinate-based clicking to send emails and schedule a calendar event." They show an example of 5.4 clicking around in Gmail to send an email. I still think this is the wrong interface to be interacting with the internet. Why not use Gmail APIs? No need to do any screenshot interpretation or coordinate-based clicking.
A world where AIs use APIs instead of UIs to do everything is a world where us humans will soon be helpless, as we'll have to ask the AIs to do everything for us and will have limited ability to observe and understand their work. I prefer that the AIs continue to use human-accessible tools, even if that's less efficient for them. As the price of intelligence trends toward zero, efficiency becomes relatively less important.
Re: GPT-5.4
#93Bit concerning that we see in some cases significantly worse results when enabling thinking. Especially for Math, but also in the browser agent benchmark. Not sure if this is more concerning for the test time compute paradigm or the underlying model itself. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something though? I'm assuming 5.4 and 5.4 Thinking are the same underlying model and that's not just marketing.
I believe you are looking at GPT 5.4 Pro. It's confusing in the context of subscription plan names, Gemini naming and such. But they've had the Pro version of the GPT 5 models (and I believe o3 and o1 too) for a while. It's the one you have access to with the top ~$200 subscription and it's available through the API for a MUCH higher price ($2.5/$15 vs $30/$180 for 5.4 per 1M tokens), but the performance improvement…
Yup, that was it. Didn't realize they're different models. I suppose naming has never been OpenAI's strong suit.
Re: GPT-5.4
#94What is the point of gpt codex?
-codex variant models in earlier version were just fine tuned for coding work, and had a little better performance for related tool calling and maybe instruction calling. in 5.4 it looks like the just collapsed that capability into the single frontier family model
Yes so I’m even more confused. Why would I use codex?
Re: GPT-5.4
#95Re: GPT-5.4
#96Article: https://openai.com/index/introducing-gpt-5-4/ gpt-5.4 Input: $2.50 /M tokens Cached: $0.25 /M tokens Output: $15 /M tokens --- gpt-5.4-pro Input: $30 /M tokens Output: $180 /M tokens Wtf
[flagged]
Can't you continue to use to older model, if you prefer the pricing?
But they also claim this new model uses fewer tokens, so it still might ultimately be cheaper even if per token cost is higher.
Re: GPT-5.4
#97If you don't want to click in, easy comparison with other 2 frontier models - https://x.com/OpenAI/status/2029620619743219811?s=20
It seems that all frontier models are basically roughly even at this point. One may be slightly better for certain things but in general I think we are approaching a real level playing field field in terms of ability.
Benchmarks don't capture a lot - relative response times, vibes, what unmeasured capabilities are jagged and which are smooth, etc. I find there's a lot of difference between models - there are things which Grok is better than ChatGPT for that the benchmarks get inverted, and vice versa. There's also the UI and tools at hand - ChatGPT image gen is just straight up better, but Grok Imagine does better videos, and is faster.
Gemini and Claude also have their strengths, apparently Claude handles real world software better, but with the extended context and improvements to Codex, ChatGPT might end up taking the lead there as well.
I don't think the linear scoring on some of the things being measured is quite applicable in the ways that they're being used, either - a 1% increase for a given benchmark could mean a 50% capabilities jump relative to a human skill level. If this rate of progress is steady, though, this year is gonna be crazy.
Re: GPT-5.4
#98These releases are lacking something. Yes, they optimised for benchmarks, but it’s just not all that impressive anymore. It is time for a product, not for a marginally improved model.
That's for you to build; they provide the brains. Do you really want one company to build everything? There wouldn't be a software industry to speak of if that happened.
Nah, the second you finish your build they release their version and then it's game over.
Re: GPT-5.4
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems that all frontier models are basically roughly even at this point. One may be slightly better for certain things but in general I think we are approaching a real level playing field field in terms of ability.
Kind of reinforces that a model is not a moat. Products, not models, are what's going to determine who gets to stay in business or not.
Memory (model usage over time) is the moat.
Re: GPT-5.4
#100These releases are lacking something. Yes, they optimised for benchmarks, but it’s just not all that impressive anymore. It is time for a product, not for a marginally improved model.
That's for you to build; they provide the brains. Do you really want one company to build everything? There wouldn't be a software industry to speak of if that happened.
Well they are currently the ones valued at a number with a whole lotta 0s on it. I think they should probably do both