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

901–910 of 1001 posts

Re: GPT-5.5

#901

Post by zaphirplane »

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.

Why would an AGI be slaving away for ~~humanity~~ one of the 5 Chaebols in a dystopian future where for 12 billion people just existing is a good day ?

Re: GPT-5.5

#902

Post by damnitbuilds »

metanonsense wrote: post #375
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…

I also had a frustrating but funny conversation today where I asked ChatGPT to make one document from the 10 or so sections that we had previously worked on. It always gave only brief summaries. After I repeated my request for the third time, it told me I should just concatenate the sections myself because it would cost too many tokens if it did it for me.

"I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid it's cheaper for you to do that"

Re: GPT-5.5

#903

Post by bananaflag »

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 know it's a joke, but it's a common enough joke (it's even in Godel Escher Bach in some form) that I feel the need to rebut it.

I think a slacker AGI could figure out how to build a non-slacker AGI. So it would only slack once.

Re: GPT-5.5

#904

Post by fiatpandas »

itemize123 wrote: post #777
louiereederson wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chip costs strongly impact the economics of model serving. It is entirely plausible to me that Opus 4.7 is designed to consume more tokens in order to artificially reduce the API cost/token, thereby obscuring the true operating cost of the model. I agree though, I chose poor phrasing originally. Better to say that GB200 vs Tranium could contribute to the efficiency differential.

probably the wrong take - they are arm racing to a better model. it's not enshittification era for models just yet

Models are still in arms race mode, but harnesses and subscription strategy are tiptoeing into their enshittification era.

Re: GPT-5.5

#905

Post by caspar »

TacticalCoder wrote: post #523
gck1 wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Start building your own liteweight "harness" that does things you need. Ignore all functionality of clients like CC or Codex and just implement whatever you start missing in your harness. You can replace pretty much everything - skills system, subagents, etc with just tmux and a simple cli tool that the official clients can call. Oh and definitely disable any form of "memory" system. Essentially, treat all tooling th…

> You can replace pretty much everything - skills system, subagents, etc with just tmux and a simple cli tool that the official clients can call. I'm very interest by this. Can you go a bit more into details? ATM for example I'm running Claude Code CLI in a VM on a server and I use SSH to access it. I don't depend on anything specific to Anthropic. But it's still a bit of a pain to "switch" to, say, Codex. How would…

Not the OP but here is a good example: https://mariozechner.at/posts/2025-11-30-pi-coding-agent/

Initially I read it because just it was interesting but it has ended up being the harness I have stuck with - pi is well designed, nicely extensible and supports many model provider APIs. Though sadly gemini and claude's subscriptions can't really be used with it anymore thanks to openclaw.

Re: GPT-5.5

#906

Post by greenavocado »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #849
greenavocado wrote: post #730

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The GPT-5.5 API endpoint started to block me after I escalated with ever more aggressive use of rizin, radare2, and ghidra to confirm correct memory management and cleanup in error code branches when working with a buggy proprietary 3rd party SDK. After I explained myself more clearly it let me carry on. Knock on wood. So there is a safety model watching your behavior for these kinds of things.

So you're saying that blackhats will be required to do a small bit of roleplay if they want the model to assist them? I'm not against public access BTW just pointing out how absurd that PR oriented "safety" feature is. "We did something don't blame us" sort of measure. It isn't even my intent to naysay their approach. They probably have to do something along those lines to avoid being convicted in the court of public…

It's a liability shield and helps to avoid unsavory headlines in the news

Re: GPT-5.5

#909

Post by I_am_tiberius »

anematode wrote: post #536
I_am_tiberius wrote: post #50

I'd really like to see improvements like these: - Some technical proof that data is never read by open ai. - Proof that no logs of my data or derived data is saved. etc...

I don't think this is technically possible without something like homomorphic encryption, which poses too large of a runtime cost for usage in LLMs

They don't even try to proof it another way.

Re: GPT-5.5

#910

Post by bananaflag »

altmanaltman wrote: post #789
butlike wrote: post #260

Earlier 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.

I still don't understand why people think AGI (in its fullest sci-fi sense) will ever listen to a weak and vulnerable species like humans, unless we enslave the AGI. Good thing is that it's going to take at least a few months to a few decades depending on how hard AI execs want to raise funding.

Maybe the same way a human would listen to their cat and give her food. I fear AGI, but I don't think the only way it would listen to us is by us enslaving it (I know people joke about cats being our masters, but it is a joke).
Post reply on HN