12 ms·

GPT-5.2-Codex

589 points by meetpateltech 10mo ago

exacube 10mo ago
would love to see some comparison numbers to Gemini and Claude, especially with this claim: "The most advanced agentic coding model for professional software engineers"
- koakuma-chan 10mo ago
  I can confirm GPT 5.2 is better than Gemini and Claude. GPT 5.2 Codex is probably even better.
  - deleted 10mo ago
    [deleted]
  - cj 10mo ago
    Gemini 2.5 or 3? (3 was released yesterday)
    - koakuma-chan 10mo ago
      I tried Gemini 3 Flash, and I am unimpressed. It's maybe a competitor to Cursor's Compose-1, but completely different league from GPT 5.2
      - HarHarVeryFunny 10mo ago
        Surely Gemini 3.0 Pro would be the appropriate comparison. If you want to compare the weakest models from both companies then Gemini Flash vs GPT Instant would seem to be best comparison, although Claude Opus 4.5 is by all accounts the most powerful for coding. In any case, it will take a few weeks for any meaningful test comparisons to be made, and in the meantime it's hard not to see any release from OpenAI since they announced "Code Red" (aka "we're behind the competition") a few days ago as more marketing than anything else.
        BeetleB 10mo ago
        Gemini 3.0 Flash outperforms Pro in many tasks - I believe the coding benchmark was one of them.
        HarHarVeryFunny 10mo ago
        Presumably that would reflect Gemini 3.0 Flash having more extensive RL for coding training than Pro ? Maybe we can expect a "Gemini 3 Pro Coding" model in the future? Opus 4.5 seems different - Anthropic's best coding model, but also their frontier general purpose model.
        koakuma-chan 10mo ago
        That's what I said in my original message. By my account, GPT 5.2 is better than Gemini 3 Pro and Opus 4.5 Gemini 3 Pro is a great foundation model. I use as a math tutor, and it's great. I previously used Gemini 2.5 Pro as a math tutor, and Gemini 3 Pro was a qualitative improvement over that. But Gemini 3 Pro sucks at being a coding agent inside a harness. It sucks at tool calling. It's borderline unusable in Cursor because of that, and likely the same in Antigravity. A few weeks ago I attended a demo of Antigravity that Google employees were giving, and it was completely broken. It got stuck for them during the demo, and they ended up not being able to show anything. Opus 4.5 is good, and faster than GPT-5.2, but less reliable. I use it for medium difficulty tasks. But for anything serious—it's GPT 5.2
        postalcoder 10mo ago
        Agreed. Gemini 3 is still pretty bad at agentic coding. Just yesterday, in Antigravity, while applying changes, it deleted 500 lines of code and replaced it with a `<rest of code goes here>`. Unacceptable behavior in 2025, lol.
        misiti3780 10mo ago
        lol
        10mo ago
      - walthamstow 10mo ago
        Glad I'm not alone in thinking Flash 3 was like Composer 1 in speed but smarter
    - Tostino 10mo ago
      3 has been out for at least a couple weeks for me.
      - koakuma-chan 10mo ago
        He meant 3 Flash, which came out recently
  - nunodonato 10mo ago
    I'm gonna call bs on these kind of comments. "better" on what? Coding models shouldn't even be compared isolated. A big part of making it work in a real/big codebase is the tool that calls the model (claude code, gemini-cli, etc). I'll bet claude code will still keep stealing your lunch every day of the week against any competitor out there
    - koakuma-chan 10mo ago
      I haven't used CC in a few months, what killer features have they added? I am using Cursor, it's clunky, but not that clunky so as to completely destroy model performance. I am pretty sure for my tasks (undocumented, buggy, legacy JavaScript project) GPT-5.2 is > all on any decent harness, because it doesn't give up or half-ass. It can run for 5 minutes or for 50 minutes, depending on your request.
      - nunodonato 10mo ago
        it's not about features (although they've added plenty), its the internal tooling and the way the model is prompted.
        koakuma-chan 10mo ago
        The only thing I know that CC has that Cursor hasn't, is the ability to spawn agents. You can just prompt CC "spawn 10 agents" and it will make 10 subagents that run concurrently. But otherwise, I don't know what CC does that Cursor doesn't. On the contrary, AFAIK, CC doesn't index your codebase, and Cursor does.
        NoveltyEngine 10mo ago
        Surely CC has a lower price? How much do you have to pay Cursor for equivalent to what's provided in a 20x Claude Max plan?
        koakuma-chan 10mo ago
  - speedgoose 10mo ago
    It’s significantly slower though. At least for my use cases I rather ask Claude 4.5 opus and switch to GPT if Claude is stuck.
whinvik 10mo ago
I actually have 0 enthusiasm for this model. When GPT 5 came out it was clearly the best model, but since Opus 4.5, GPT5.x just feels so slow. So, I am going to skip all `thinking` releases from OpenAI and check them again only if they come up with something that does not rely so much on thinking.
- famahar 10mo ago
  It's wild to me how people get used to new ground breaking coding LLM models. Every time a new update comes there are so many people that think it's trash because it made an error or takes some time to think. We all have access to a skilled (enough) pair programmer available 24/7. Like I'm still recovering from the shock of the first coding capable LLM from 2 years ago.
  - whinvik 10mo ago
    Haha the issue is competition. If nothing else existed then every GPT5.X release would have been amazing. But Opus 4.5 exists.
seneca 10mo ago
I hope this makes a big jump forward for them. I used to be a heavy Codex user, but it has just been so much worse than Claude Code both in UX and in actual results that I've completely given up on it. Anthropic needs a real competitor to keep them motivated and they just don't have one right now, so I'd really like to see OpenAI get back in the game.
- GenerWork 10mo ago
  GPT 5.2 has gotten a lot better at building UI elements when given a Figma MCP server link. I used to use Claude for building brand new UI elements based on the Figma link, but 5.2 caught up to a point where I'm probably going to cancel Claude.
  - seneca 10mo ago
    Nice, I'll have to give that a shot. I often use Claude for exactly that.
  - misiti3780 10mo ago
    i didnt realize you can pass it a figma MCP link. is this an undocumented feature ?
    - GenerWork 10mo ago
      I don't think so. I've seen multiple posts from Figma and Codex talking about the best way of working with both tools.
NitpickLawyer 10mo ago
> In parallel, we’re piloting invite-only trusted access to upcoming capabilities and more permissive models for vetted professionals and organizations focused on defensive cybersecurity work. We believe that this approach to deployment will balance accessibility with safety. Yeah, this makes sense. There's a fine line between good enough to do security research and good enough to be a prompt kiddie on steroids. At the same time, aligning the models for "safety" would probably make them worse overall, especially when dealing with security questions (i.e. analyse this code snippet and provide security feedback / improvements). At the end of the day, after some KYC I see no reason why they shouldn't be "in the clear". They get all the positive news (i.e. our gpt666-pro-ultra-krypto-sec found a CVE in openBSD stable release), while not being exposed to tabloid style titles like "a 3 year old asked chatgpt to turn on the lights and chatgpt hacked into nasa, news at 5"...
larrymcp 10mo ago
Can anyone elaborate on what they're referring to here? > GPT‑5.2-Codex has stronger cybersecurity capabilities than any model we’ve released so far. These advances can help strengthen cybersecurity at scale, but they also raise new dual-use risks that require careful deployment. I'm curious what they mean by the dual-use risks.
- pixl97 10mo ago
  Finding/patching exploits means you also can exploit them better?
  - throwaway127482 10mo ago
    They did some interesting wordsmithing here to cover their ass without saying it directly.
    - whynotminot 10mo ago
      What they said sounded pretty direct to me.
- runtimepanic 10mo ago
  “Dual-use” here usually isn’t about novel attack techniques, but about lowering the barrier to execution. The same improvements that help defenders reason about exploit chains, misconfigurations, or detection logic can also help an attacker automate reconnaissance, payload adaptation, or post-exploitation analysis. Historically, this shows up less as “new attacks” and more as speed and scale shifts. Things that required an experienced operator become accessible to a much wider audience. That’s why deployment controls, logging, and use-case constraints matter as much as the raw capability itself.
- baq 10mo ago
  probably that it's good on tasks of either color teams, red or blue - and if it is, it means you can automate some... interesting workflows.
- 10mo ago
OldGreenYodaGPT 10mo ago
GPT 5.2 has been very good in codex can't wait to try this new modal. Will see how it compares to Opus 4.5
- firemelt 10mo ago
  tell me the rrsultz which one do you prefer
tptacek 10mo ago
It's interesting that they're foregrounding "cyber" stuff (basically: applied software security testing) this way, but I think we've already crossed a threshold of utility for security work that doesn't require models to advance to make a dent --- and won't be responsive to "responsible use" controls. Zero-shotting is a fun stunt, but in the real world what you need is just hypothesis identification (something the last few generations of models are fine at) and then quick building of tooling. Most of the time spent in vulnerability analysis is automatable grunt work. If you can just take that off the table, and free human testers up to think creatively about anomalous behavior identified for them, you're already drastically improving effectiveness.
trunnell 10mo ago
Why aren’t they making gpt-5.2-codex available in the API at launch?
- kingstnap 10mo ago
  > we’re piloting invite-only trusted access to upcoming capabilities and more permissive models Just safety nerds being gatekeepers.
  - trunnell 10mo ago
    That’s for future unreleased capabilities and models, not the model released today. They did the same thing for gpt-5.1-codex-max (code name “arcticfox”), delaying its availability in the API and only allowing it to be used by monthly plan users, and as an API user I found it very annoying.
- MallocVoidstar 10mo ago
  They can't train on the API.
- dist-epoch 10mo ago
  They say it's because it's too good at hacking stuff.
fellowniusmonk 10mo ago
In all my unpublished tests, which focus on 1. unique logic puzzles that are intentionally adjacent to existing puzzles and 2. implementing a specific unique CRDT algorithm that is not particularly common but has an official reference implementation on github (so the models definitely been trained on it) I find that 5.2 overfits to the more common implementation and will actively break working code and puzzles. I find it to be incorrectly pattern matching with a very narrow focus and will ignore real documented differences even when explicitly highlighted in the prompt text (this is X crdt algo not Y crdt algo.) I've canceled my subscription, the idea that on any larger edits it will just start wrecking nuance and then refuse to accept prompts that point this out is an extremely dangerous form of target fixation.
- pillefitz 10mo ago
  How does Claude perform?
  - fellowniusmonk 10mo ago
    They all have difficulty with certain crdts types in general, 4.5 opus has to go through a round of ask to give it clarifying instructions but then it's fine. Neither get it perfectly as a one shot, claude if you jump straight into agent won't break code but will churn for a bit.
postalcoder 10mo ago
It has become very quickly unfashionable for people to say they like the Codex CLI. I still enjoy working with it and my only complaint is that its speed makes it unideal for pair coding. On top of that, the Codex CLI team is responsive on github and it's clear that user complaints make their way to the team responsible for fine tuning these models. I run bake offs on between all three models and GPT 5.2 generally has a higher success rate of implementing features, followed closely by Opus 4.5 and then Gemini 3, which has troubles with agentic coding. I'm interested to see how 5.2-codex behaves. I haven't been a fan of the codex models in general.
- jbm 10mo ago
  When Claude screws up a task I use Codex and vice versa. It helps a lot when I'm working on libraries that I've never touched before, especially iOS related. (Also, I can't imagine who is blessed with so much spare tome that they would look down on an assistant that does decent work)
  - embedding-shape 10mo ago
    > When Claude screws up a task I use Codex and vice versa Yeah, it feels really strange sometimes. Bumping up against something that Codex seemingly can't work out, and you give it to Claude and suddenly it's easy. And you continue with Claude and eventually it gets stuck on something, and you try Codex which gets it immediately. My guess would be that the training data differs just enough for it to have an impact.
    - extr 10mo ago
      I think Claude is more practically minded. I find that OAI models in general default to the most technically correct, expensive (in terms of LoC implementation cost, possible future maintenance burden, etc) solution. Whereas Claude will take a look at the codebase and say "Looks like a webshit React app, why don't you just do XYZ which gets you 90% of the way there in 3 lines". But if you want that last 10%, codex is vital. Edit: Literally after I typed this just had this happen. Codex 5.2 reports a P1 bug in a PR. I look closely, I'm not actually sure it's a "bug". I take it to Claude. Claude agrees it's more of a product behavioral opinion on whether or not to persist garbage data, and offer it's own product opinion that I probably want to keep it the way it is. Codex 5.2 meanwhile stubbornly accepts the view it's a product decision but won't seem to offer it's own opinion!
mccoyb 10mo ago
If anyone from OpenAI is reading this -- a plea to not screw with the reasoning capabilities! Codex is so so good at finding bugs and little inconsistencies, it's astounding to me. Where Claude Code is good at "raw coding", Codex/GPT5.x are unbeatable in terms of careful, methodical finding of "problems" (be it in code, or in math). Yes, it takes longer (quality, not speed please!) -- but the things that it finds consistently astound me.
- tgtweak 10mo ago
  Anecdotally I've found it very good in the exact same case for multi-agent workflows - as the "reviewer"
- ifwinterco 10mo ago
  I think the issue is for them "quality, not speed" means "expensive, not cheap" and they can't pass that extra cost on to customers
  - mccoyb 10mo ago
    I'm happy to pay the same right now for less (on the max plan, or whatever) -- because I'm never running into limits, and I'm running these models near all day every day (as a single user working on my own personal projects). I consistently run into limits with CC (Opus 4.5) -- but even though Codex seems to be spending significantly more tokens, it just seems like the quota limit is much higher?
    - Computer0 10mo ago
      I am on the $20 plan for CC and Codex, I feel like a session of usage on CC == ~20% Codex usage / 5 hours in terms of time spent inferencing. It has always seemed way more geneous than I would expect.
      - Aurornis 10mo ago
        Agreed. The $20 plans can go very far when you're using the coding agent as an additional tool in your development flow, not just trying to hammer it with prompts until you get output that works. Managing context goes a long way, too. I clear context for every new task and keep the local context files up to date with key info to get the LLM on target quickly
79a6ed87 10mo ago
My only concern with Codex is that it's not possible to delete tasks. This is a privacy and security risk. Your code diffs and prompts are there (seemingly) forever. Best you can do is "archive" them, which is a fancy word for "put it somewhere else so it doesn't clutter the main page".
- Leynos 10mo ago
  Terragon is an alternative (hosts Claude and Codex using your OpenAI and Anthropic subscriptions, and also supports Google and Amp) that provides this functionality. I use it because it works out cheaper than Codex Cloud and gives you greater flexibility. Although it doesn't have 5.2-codex yet.
  - tgtweak 10mo ago
    Yes but if it's not getting removed at the origin... it's not fixing the actual issue of the context/conversation surviving past an explicit "delete" request. Also let's not forget that anyone proxying LLMs is also man in the middle to any code that goes up/down.
    - Leynos 10mo ago
      79a6ed87’s comment applies to Codex cloud, not the codex CLI, which is what Terragon is using.
- throwuxiytayq 10mo ago
  It's weird, suspicious, and plain annoying. I like the the tool and my tests have shown it to be very powerful (if a bit rough and buggy), but this is ridiculous - I won't use it for any real world projects until this is fixed. Then again, I wouldn't put much trust into OpenAI's handling of information either way.
- moralestapia 10mo ago
  `rm -rf ~/.codex/archived_sessions` does the trick
shanev 10mo ago
The GPT models, in my experience, have been much better for backend than the Claude models. They're much slower, but produce logic that is more clear, and code that is more maintainable. A pattern I use is, setup a Github issue with Claude plan mode, then have Codex execute it. Then come back to Claude to run custom code review plugins. Then, of course review it with my own eyes before merging the PR. My only gripe is I wish they'd publish Codex CLI updates to homebrew the same time as npm :)
- mrcwinn 10mo ago
  I’d agree with you until Opus 4.5.
- SamDc73 10mo ago
  GPT-5 was the first model that occasionally produced code that I could push without any changes Claude still tends to add "fluff" around the solution and over-engineer, not that the code doesn't work, it's just that it's ugly
- lemming 10mo ago
  Interesting, I have consistently found that Codex does much better code reviews than Claude. Claude will occasionally find real issues, but will frequently bike shed things I don't care about. Codex always finds things that I do actually care about and that clearly need fixing.
- allovertheworld 10mo ago
  Eh sonnet 4.5 was better at Rust for me
k_bx 10mo ago
Codex code review has been astounding for my distributed team of devs. Very well spent money.
- lacoolj 10mo ago
  [flagged]
  - cthalupa 10mo ago
    It is common for people to read a word and then re-use it themselves shortly after. Humans are very suggestible.
    - lacoolj 10mo ago
      very true curious if this, or coincidence
      - enraged_camel 10mo ago
        "Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action." -Ian Fleming, Goldfinger (1959)
    - k_bx 10mo ago
      Can't see the original comment, is that about my usage of the "astounding" word? I am Ukrainian (not a native speaker), and it popped up subconsciously, but now that I see it it another comment – very likely I just read it, that's why indeed! Amazing
      - cthalupa 10mo ago
        > Can't see the original comment, is that about my usage of the "astounding" word? It was indeed! > very likely I just read it I find myself doing it frequently. I'm even sure that's why I used indeed above after reading your comment - it wasn't intentional!
freedomben 10mo ago
The cybersecurity angle is interesting, because in my experience OpenAI stuff has gotten terrible at cybersecurity because it simply refuses to do anything that can be remotely offensive (as in the opposite of "defensive"). I really thought we as an industry had learned our lesson that blocking "good guys" (aka white-hats) from offensive tools/capabilities only empowers the gray-hat/black-hats and puts us at a disadvantage. A good defense requires some offense. I sure hope they change that.
- mapontosevenths 10mo ago
  The article mentions that more permissive models would be invite only. I think it's a solid approach, as long as they don't make getting one of those invites too difficult. > "In parallel, we’re piloting invite-only trusted access to upcoming capabilities and more permissive models for vetted professionals and organizations focused on defensive cybersecurity work. We believe that this approach to deployment will balance accessibility with safety."
  - hiAndrewQuinn 10mo ago
    I'm moving into a cybersecurity-focused role, and I for one would be very interested in this. A vetting process makes total sense, but complete lack of access seems like a market inefficiency in the making that the one area where we can't reliably get the frontier models to assist us in pentesting our own stuff without a lot of hedging.
- hhh 10mo ago
  I use openai models every day for offensive work. haven’t had a problem in a long time
- JacobAsmuth 10mo ago
  So in general you think that making frontier AI models more offensive in black hat capabilities will be good for cybersecurity?
  - artursapek 10mo ago
monster_truck 10mo ago
[flagged]
- speedgoose 10mo ago
  Devstral 2 struggles with the tools syntax in my own testing. Happy to read that it works with some.
- chollida1 10mo ago
  What should companies do with people a week before Christmas if not give them work to do? What about 2 weeks before Christmas?
jasonthorsness 10mo ago
Recently I’ve had the best results with Gemini; with this I’ll have to go back to Codex for my next project. It takes time to get a feel for the capabilities of a model it’s sort of tedious having new ones come out so frequently.
tananaev 10mo ago
I was very skeptical about Codex at the beginning, but now all my coding tasks start with Codex. It's not perfect at everything, but overall it's pretty amazing. Refactoring, building something new, building something I'm not familiar with. It is still not great at debugging things. One surprising thing that codex helped with is procrastination. I'm sure many people had this feeling when you have some big task and you don't quite know where to start. Just send it to Codex. It might not get it right, but it's almost always good starting point that you can quickly iterate on.
- BinaryIgor 10mo ago
  I have similar experiences with Claude Code ;) Have you used it as well? How does it compare?
- 9dev 10mo ago
  I always wonder how people make qualitative statements like this. There are so many variables! Is it my prompt? The task? The specific model version? A good or bad branch out of the non-deterministic solution space? Like, do you run a proper experiment where you hand the same task to multiple models several times and compare the results? Not snark by the way, I’m asking in earnest how you pick one model over another.
  - embedding-shape 10mo ago
    > Like, do you run a proper experiment where you hand the same task to multiple models several times and compare the results? This is what I do. I have a little TUI that fires off Claude Code, Codex, Gemini, Qwen Coder and AMP in separate containers for most task I do (although I've started to use AMP less and less), and either returns the last message of what they replied and/or a git diff of what exactly they did. Then I compare them side by side. If all of them got something wrong, I update the prompt, fire them off again. Always starting from zero, and always include the full context of what you're doing with the first message, they're all non-interactive sessions. Sometimes I do 3x Codex instead of different agents, just to double-check that all of them would do the same thing. If they go off and do different things from each other, I know the initial prompt isn't specific/strict enough, and again iterate.
lacoolj 10mo ago
lol I love how OpenAI just straight up doesn't compare their model to others on these release pages. Basically telling us they know Gemini and Opus are better but they don't want to draw attention to it
- qwesr123 10mo ago
  Not sure why they don't compare with others, but they are actually leading on the benchmarks they published. See here (bottom) for a chart comparing to other models: https://marginlab.ai/blog/swe-bench-deep-dive/ https://marginlab.ai/blog/swe-bench-deep-dive/
  - mistercheph 10mo ago
    It's like apple, they just don't want users or anyone to even be thinking of their competitors, the competition doesn't exist, it's not relevant.
  - whimsicalism 10mo ago
    is swe-bench saturated? or they switch to swe-bench pro because...?
    - Mkengin 10mo ago
      At least on swe-rebench it does pretty well: https://swe-rebench.com/ https://swe-rebench.com/
- dbbk 10mo ago
  This was the one thing I scanned for. No comparison against Opus. See ya.
  - Mkengin 10mo ago
    Though this Codex version isnt on the leaderboard, GPT-5.2-Medium already seems to be a bit better than Opus 4.5: https://swe-rebench.com/ https://swe-rebench.com/
tonyhart7 10mo ago
very minuscule improvement, I suspect GPT 5.2 is already coding model from the ground up and this codex model include "various optimization + tool" on tops
CjHuber 10mo ago
Somehow Codex for me is always way worse than the base models. Especially in the CLI, it seems that its so way too eager to start writing code nothing can stop it, not even the best Agents.md. Asking it a question or telling it to check something doesn‘t mean it should start editing code, it means answer the question. All models have this issue to some degree, but codex is the worst offender for me.
- w-m 10mo ago
  Just use the non-codex models for investigation and planning, they listen to "do not edit any files yet, just reply here in chat". And they're better at getting the bigger picture. Then you can use the -codex variant for execution of a carefully drafted plan.
- embedding-shape 10mo ago
  > Somehow Codex for me is always way worse than the base models. I feel the same. CodexTheModel (why have two things named the same way?!) is a good deal faster than the other models, and probably on the "fast/accuracy" scale it sits somewhere else, but most code I want to be as high quality as possible, and the base models do seem better at that than CodexTheModel.
  - drdrey 10mo ago
    have you tried adjusting the reasoning effort?
- JeremyNT 10mo ago
  Same experience here. I see people gushing over these codex models but they seem worse than the big gpt models in my own actual use (i.e. I'll give the same prompt to gpt-5.1 and gpt-5.1-codex and codex will give me functional but weird/ugly code, whereas gpt-5.1 code is cleaner)
- nowittyusername 10mo ago
  I've had this issues as well since codex models were introduced. i tried them but 5.1 regular on high thinking always worked better for me. I think its because its thinking is deeper and more nuanced it seemed to understand better what needed doing. I did have to interact more often with it versus Codex which just worked for a long time by itself, but those interactions were worth it in reduction of assumptions and other stuff Codex made. Im gonna try 5,2 Codex today and hope that changes, but so far I've been happy with base 5.1 high thinking.
lkt 10mo ago
I've been doing some reverse engineering recently and have found Gemini 3 Pro to be the best model for that, surprisingly much better than Opus 4.5. Maybe it's time to give Codex a try
- sigmar 10mo ago
  Curious what your workflow is for reverse engineering with LLMs? Do you run the LLM in an IDE?
mistercheph 10mo ago
Gotta love only comparing the model to other openai models and just like yesterday's gemini thread, the vibes in this thread are so astroturfed. I guess it makes sense for the frontier labs to want to win the hearts and minds of silicon valley.
- tptacek 10mo ago
  Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - mistercheph 10mo ago
    Sorry, didn't realize.
abshkbh 10mo ago
We have made this model even better at programming in Windows. Give it a shot :)
- holtkam2 10mo ago
  You mean its ability to use powershell, or something else?
- helsinki 10mo ago
  Can you invite me? In the off chance, my email is in my profile, but reversed.
- lukax 10mo ago
  Will it also remove the whole D:\?
catigula 10mo ago
The models aren't smart enough to be fully agentic. This is why Claude Code human-in-the-loop process is 100x more ergonomic.
bgwalter 10mo ago
They found one React bug and spend pages on "frontier" "cyber" nonsense. They make these truly marvelous models only available to "vetted" "security professionals". I can imagine what the vetting looks like: The professionals are not allowed to disclose that the models don't work. EDIT: It must really hurt that ORCL is down 40% from its high due to overexposure in OpenAI.
deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]
ianberdin 10mo ago
Thanks gosh, we have so bloody competition. The models are so good, unbelievable good. And getting better weekly, including pricing.
Alifatisk 10mo ago
> <PLACEHOLDER FOR FRONTEND HTML ASSETS> > [ADD/LINK TO ROLLOUT THAT DISCOVERED VULNERABILITY] What’s up with these in the article?
fragmede 10mo ago
So, uh, I've been being and idiot and running it in yolo mode, and twice now it's gone and deleted the entire project directory, wiping out all of my work. Thankfully I have backups and it's my fault for playing with fire, but yeesh. I have https://gist.github.com/fragmede/96f35225c29cf8790f10b1668b849af7 https://gist.github.com/fragmede/96f35225c29cf8790f10b1668b8... as a guard against that, for anyone that's stupid enough like me to run it in yolo mode and wants to copy it. Codex also has command line options so you can specifically prohibit running rm in bash, so look those up too.
dworks 10mo ago
GPT 5.1 has been pure magic in VSCode via the Codex plugin. I can't tell any difference with 5.2 yet. I hope the Codex plugin gets feature parity with CC, Cursor, Kilo Code etc soon. That should increase performance a bit more through scaffolding. I had assumed OpenAI was irrelevant, but 5.1 has been so much better than Gemini.
kordlessagain 10mo ago
I’ve been using Codex CLI heavily after moving off Claude Code and built a containerized starter to run Codex in different modes: timers/file triggers, API calls, or interactive/single-run CLI. A few others are already using it for agentic workflows. If you want to run Codex securely (or not) in a container to test the model or build workflows, check out https://github.com/DeepBlueDynamics/codex-container https://github.com/DeepBlueDynamics/codex-container. It ships with 300+ MCP tools (crawl, Google search, Gmail/GCal/GDrive, Slack, scheduling, web indexing, embeddings, transcription, and more). Many came from tools I originally built for Claude Desktop—OpenAI’s MCP has been stable across 20+ versions so I prefer it. I will note I usually run this in Danger mode but because it runs in a container, it doesn't have access to ENVs I don't want it messing with, and have it in a directory I'm OK with it changing or poking about in. Headless browser setup for the crawl tools: https://github.com/DeepBlueDynamics/gnosis-crawl https://github.com/DeepBlueDynamics/gnosis-crawl. My email is in my profile if anyone needs help.
- pertymcpert 10mo ago
  I assume those MCP tools are a library and not actually expected to work all at the same time right?
  - kordlessagain 10mo ago
    Yes, you can draw from it. There is a config file you can use to edit to "install" or "remove" them from the build. You can also just ask the agent to do it.
- marktolson 10mo ago
  Looks good but there is no way I'm installing powershell as a dependency.
  - cachius 10mo ago
    Why not?
    - 10mo ago
fragmede 10mo ago
Fwiw, I had some well defined tickets in Jira assigned to me, and 5.2 absolutely crushed them. Still waiting on CI, but games over.
ChrisMarshallNY 10mo ago
> For example, just last week, a security researcher using GPT‑5.1-Codex-Max with Codex CLI found and responsibly disclosed (opens in a new window) a vulnerability in React that could lead to source code exposure. Translation: "Hey y'all! Get ready for a tsunami of AI-generated CVEs!"
mvkel 10mo ago
Fascinating to see the increasing acceptance of AI generated code in HN comments. We've come a long way since gpt-3.5, and it's rewarding to see people who are willing to change their cached responses
- scottyah 10mo ago
  I started out very anti-ai at work, and I still think it was reasonable at the time. I have completely changed my mind now (as models have improved drastically), and I think you now need to provide a valid excuse for NOT using it in some way/shape/form. A simple webhook to check a PR is a no-brainer unless you're a freakishly superb coder. Some coworkers still seem to waste more time fighting an ever-increasingly-hallucinating chatbot over niche helm chart issues than they would if they had just read the documentation in the first place, but people can abuse any tool.
simianwords 10mo ago
No one's saying this but this is around 40% costlier than the previous codex model. Price change is important.
- wahnfrieden 10mo ago
  Because the best value is from the subscription where the price is stable
  - crazylogger 10mo ago
    From a couple hours of usage in the CLI, 5.2-codex seems to burn through my plan's limit noticeably faster than 5.1-codex. So I guess the usage limit is a set dollar amount of API credits under the hood.
aaa_aaa 10mo ago
I am suspecting there are some shills astroturfing for every LLM release. Or people are overreacting as a result of their unnecessary attachment.
- wickedsight 10mo ago
  Or, maybe, people are enthusiastic about something that works really well for them. I'm one of those people, LLMs have greatly improved my output on many tasks.
- PostOnce 10mo ago
  It sure seems like it. That or delirious, misguided fans who want AI to succeed even though there would be no benefit in it for them if that were the case. They'd just be serfs again. I watched a man struggle for 3 hours last night to "prove me wrong" that Gemini 3 Pro can convert a 3000 line C program to Python. It can't do it. It can't even do half of it, it can't understand why it can't, it's wrong about what failed, it can't fix it when you tell it what it did wrong, etc. Of course, in the end, he had an 80 line Python file that didn't work, and if it did work, it's 80 lines, of course it can't do what the 3000 line C program is doing. So even if it had produced a working program, which it didn't, it would have produced a program that did not solve the problems it was asked to solve. The AI can't even guess that it's 80 line output is probably wrong just based on the size of it, like a human instantly would. AI doesn't work. It hasn't worked, and it very likely is not going to work. That's based on the empirical evidence and repeatable tests we are surrounded by. The guy last night said that sentiment was copium, before he went on a 3 hour odyssey that ended in failure. It'll be sad to watch that play out in the economy at large.
  - user34283 10mo ago
    AI works. This is evidenced by my side project which I spent some 50 hours on. I'm not sure what your "empirical evidence and repeatable tests" is supposed to be. The AI not successfully converting a 3000 line C program to Python, in a test you probably designed to fail, doesn't strike me as particularly relevant. Also, I suspect that AI could most likely guess that 80 lines of Python aren't correctly replicating 3000 lines of C, if you prompted it correctly.
hmate9 10mo ago
I'm glad we are moving towards more of quality over speed
phplovesong 10mo ago
But when will they release SLOP-1.7-Jizz
mohsen1 10mo ago
Since they are not showing you how this model compares against the benchmarks they are showing, here is a quick view with the public numbers from Google and Anthropic. At least this gives some context: SWE-Bench (Pro / Verified) Model | Pro (%) | Verified (%) --------------------+---------+-------------- GPT-5.2-Codex | 56.4 | ~80 GPT-5.2 | 55.6 | ~80 Claude Opus 4.5 | n/a | ~80.9 Gemini 3 Pro | n/a | ~76.2 And for terminal workflows, where agentic steps matter: Terminal-Bench 2.0 Model | Score (%) --------------------+----------- Claude Opus 4.5 | ~60+ Gemini 3 Pro | ~54 GPT-5.2-Codex | ~47 So yes, GPT-5.2-Codex is good, but when you put it next to its real competitors: - Claude is still ahead on strict coding + terminal-style tasks - Gemini is better for huge context + multimodal reasoning - GPT-5.2-Codex is strong but not clearly the new state of the art across the board It feels a bit odd that the page only shows internal numbers instead of placing them next to the other leaders.
- qwesr123 10mo ago
  Where are you getting SWE-Bench Verified scores for 5.2-Codex? AFAIK those have not been published. And I don't think your Terminal-Bench 2.0 scores are accurate. Per the latest benchmarks: Opus 4.5 is at 59% GPT-5.2-Codex is at 64% See the charts at the bottom of https://marginlab.ai/blog/swe-bench-deep-dive/ https://marginlab.ai/blog/swe-bench-deep-dive/ and https://marginlab.ai/blog/terminal-bench-deep-dive/ https://marginlab.ai/blog/terminal-bench-deep-dive/
- scellus 10mo ago
  I like Opus 4.5 a lot, but a general comment on benchmarks: the number of subtasks or problems in each one is finite, and many of the benchmarks are saturating, so the effective number of problems at the frontier is even smaller. If you think of the generalizable capability of the model as a latent feature to be measured by benchmarks, we therefore have only rather noisy estimates. People read too much into small differences in numbers. It's best to aggregate across many, Epoch has their Capabilities Index, and Artificial Analysis is doing something similar, and probably others I don't know or remember. And then there's the part of models that is hard to measure. Opus has some sort of HAL-like smoothness I don't see in other models, but meanwhile, I haven't tried gpt-5.2 for coding yet. (Neither Gemini 3 Pro; I'm not claiming superiority of Opus, just that something in practical usability is hard to measure.)
hereme888 10mo ago
Constantly disconnects in VS Code extension. Have to switch to regular 5.2...
aunty_helen 10mo ago
The biggest question for me is "Why?" They're getting slaughtered by the more focused Anthropic team who decided they will have the best coding model. Given how bad things have been going recently (5.2 chat bombing and being behind, opus being the code GOAT, G team dominating media, Grok existing and meta / the Chinese dominating opensource), they should niche to the general purpose llm before that's all they're left with by market forces. I'm still pretty sour they didn't have the vision at the time to build an ecosystem around them and instead went for those building the ecosystem on them.

589 points by meetpateltech 10mo ago

would love to see some comparison numbers to Gemini and Claude, especially with this claim: "The most advanced agentic coding model for professional software engineers"

koakuma-chan 10mo ago
I can confirm GPT 5.2 is better than Gemini and Claude. GPT 5.2 Codex is probably even better.
- deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]
- cj 10mo ago
  Gemini 2.5 or 3? (3 was released yesterday)
  - koakuma-chan 10mo ago
    I tried Gemini 3 Flash, and I am unimpressed. It's maybe a competitor to Cursor's Compose-1, but completely different league from GPT 5.2
    - HarHarVeryFunny 10mo ago
      Surely Gemini 3.0 Pro would be the appropriate comparison. If you want to compare the weakest models from both companies then Gemini Flash vs GPT Instant would seem to be best comparison, although Claude Opus 4.5 is by all accounts the most powerful for coding. In any case, it will take a few weeks for any meaningful test comparisons to be made, and in the meantime it's hard not to see any release from OpenAI since they announced "Code Red" (aka "we're behind the competition") a few days ago as more marketing than anything else.
      - BeetleB 10mo ago
        Gemini 3.0 Flash outperforms Pro in many tasks - I believe the coding benchmark was one of them.
        HarHarVeryFunny 10mo ago
        Presumably that would reflect Gemini 3.0 Flash having more extensive RL for coding training than Pro ? Maybe we can expect a "Gemini 3 Pro Coding" model in the future? Opus 4.5 seems different - Anthropic's best coding model, but also their frontier general purpose model.
      - koakuma-chan 10mo ago
        That's what I said in my original message. By my account, GPT 5.2 is better than Gemini 3 Pro and Opus 4.5 Gemini 3 Pro is a great foundation model. I use as a math tutor, and it's great. I previously used Gemini 2.5 Pro as a math tutor, and Gemini 3 Pro was a qualitative improvement over that. But Gemini 3 Pro sucks at being a coding agent inside a harness. It sucks at tool calling. It's borderline unusable in Cursor because of that, and likely the same in Antigravity. A few weeks ago I attended a demo of Antigravity that Google employees were giving, and it was completely broken. It got stuck for them during the demo, and they ended up not being able to show anything. Opus 4.5 is good, and faster than GPT-5.2, but less reliable. I use it for medium difficulty tasks. But for anything serious—it's GPT 5.2
        postalcoder 10mo ago
        Agreed. Gemini 3 is still pretty bad at agentic coding. Just yesterday, in Antigravity, while applying changes, it deleted 500 lines of code and replaced it with a `<rest of code goes here>`. Unacceptable behavior in 2025, lol.
        misiti3780 10mo ago
        lol
        10mo ago
    - walthamstow 10mo ago
      Glad I'm not alone in thinking Flash 3 was like Composer 1 in speed but smarter
  - Tostino 10mo ago
    3 has been out for at least a couple weeks for me.
    - koakuma-chan 10mo ago
      He meant 3 Flash, which came out recently
- nunodonato 10mo ago
  I'm gonna call bs on these kind of comments. "better" on what? Coding models shouldn't even be compared isolated. A big part of making it work in a real/big codebase is the tool that calls the model (claude code, gemini-cli, etc). I'll bet claude code will still keep stealing your lunch every day of the week against any competitor out there
  - koakuma-chan 10mo ago
    I haven't used CC in a few months, what killer features have they added? I am using Cursor, it's clunky, but not that clunky so as to completely destroy model performance. I am pretty sure for my tasks (undocumented, buggy, legacy JavaScript project) GPT-5.2 is > all on any decent harness, because it doesn't give up or half-ass. It can run for 5 minutes or for 50 minutes, depending on your request.
    - nunodonato 10mo ago
      it's not about features (although they've added plenty), its the internal tooling and the way the model is prompted.
      - koakuma-chan 10mo ago
        The only thing I know that CC has that Cursor hasn't, is the ability to spawn agents. You can just prompt CC "spawn 10 agents" and it will make 10 subagents that run concurrently. But otherwise, I don't know what CC does that Cursor doesn't. On the contrary, AFAIK, CC doesn't index your codebase, and Cursor does.
        NoveltyEngine 10mo ago
        Surely CC has a lower price? How much do you have to pay Cursor for equivalent to what's provided in a 20x Claude Max plan?
        koakuma-chan 10mo ago
- speedgoose 10mo ago
  It’s significantly slower though. At least for my use cases I rather ask Claude 4.5 opus and switch to GPT if Claude is stuck.

whinvik 10mo ago

I actually have 0 enthusiasm for this model. When GPT 5 came out it was clearly the best model, but since Opus 4.5, GPT5.x just feels so slow. So, I am going to skip all `thinking` releases from OpenAI and check them again only if they come up with something that does not rely so much on thinking.

famahar 10mo ago
It's wild to me how people get used to new ground breaking coding LLM models. Every time a new update comes there are so many people that think it's trash because it made an error or takes some time to think. We all have access to a skilled (enough) pair programmer available 24/7. Like I'm still recovering from the shock of the first coding capable LLM from 2 years ago.
- whinvik 10mo ago
  Haha the issue is competition. If nothing else existed then every GPT5.X release would have been amazing. But Opus 4.5 exists.

seneca 10mo ago

I hope this makes a big jump forward for them. I used to be a heavy Codex user, but it has just been so much worse than Claude Code both in UX and in actual results that I've completely given up on it. Anthropic needs a real competitor to keep them motivated and they just don't have one right now, so I'd really like to see OpenAI get back in the game.

GenerWork 10mo ago
GPT 5.2 has gotten a lot better at building UI elements when given a Figma MCP server link. I used to use Claude for building brand new UI elements based on the Figma link, but 5.2 caught up to a point where I'm probably going to cancel Claude.
- seneca 10mo ago
  Nice, I'll have to give that a shot. I often use Claude for exactly that.
- misiti3780 10mo ago
  i didnt realize you can pass it a figma MCP link. is this an undocumented feature ?
  - GenerWork 10mo ago
    I don't think so. I've seen multiple posts from Figma and Codex talking about the best way of working with both tools.

NitpickLawyer 10mo ago

> In parallel, we’re piloting invite-only trusted access to upcoming capabilities and more permissive models for vetted professionals and organizations focused on defensive cybersecurity work. We believe that this approach to deployment will balance accessibility with safety. Yeah, this makes sense. There's a fine line between good enough to do security research and good enough to be a prompt kiddie on steroids. At the same time, aligning the models for "safety" would probably make them worse overall, especially when dealing with security questions (i.e. analyse this code snippet and provide security feedback / improvements). At the end of the day, after some KYC I see no reason why they shouldn't be "in the clear". They get all the positive news (i.e. our gpt666-pro-ultra-krypto-sec found a CVE in openBSD stable release), while not being exposed to tabloid style titles like "a 3 year old asked chatgpt to turn on the lights and chatgpt hacked into nasa, news at 5"...

larrymcp 10mo ago

Can anyone elaborate on what they're referring to here? > GPT‑5.2-Codex has stronger cybersecurity capabilities than any model we’ve released so far. These advances can help strengthen cybersecurity at scale, but they also raise new dual-use risks that require careful deployment. I'm curious what they mean by the dual-use risks.

pixl97 10mo ago
Finding/patching exploits means you also can exploit them better?
- throwaway127482 10mo ago
  They did some interesting wordsmithing here to cover their ass without saying it directly.
  - whynotminot 10mo ago
    What they said sounded pretty direct to me.
runtimepanic 10mo ago
“Dual-use” here usually isn’t about novel attack techniques, but about lowering the barrier to execution. The same improvements that help defenders reason about exploit chains, misconfigurations, or detection logic can also help an attacker automate reconnaissance, payload adaptation, or post-exploitation analysis. Historically, this shows up less as “new attacks” and more as speed and scale shifts. Things that required an experienced operator become accessible to a much wider audience. That’s why deployment controls, logging, and use-case constraints matter as much as the raw capability itself.
baq 10mo ago
probably that it's good on tasks of either color teams, red or blue - and if it is, it means you can automate some... interesting workflows.
10mo ago

OldGreenYodaGPT 10mo ago

GPT 5.2 has been very good in codex can't wait to try this new modal. Will see how it compares to Opus 4.5

firemelt 10mo ago
tell me the rrsultz which one do you prefer

tptacek 10mo ago

It's interesting that they're foregrounding "cyber" stuff (basically: applied software security testing) this way, but I think we've already crossed a threshold of utility for security work that doesn't require models to advance to make a dent --- and won't be responsive to "responsible use" controls. Zero-shotting is a fun stunt, but in the real world what you need is just hypothesis identification (something the last few generations of models are fine at) and then quick building of tooling. Most of the time spent in vulnerability analysis is automatable grunt work. If you can just take that off the table, and free human testers up to think creatively about anomalous behavior identified for them, you're already drastically improving effectiveness.

trunnell 10mo ago

Why aren’t they making gpt-5.2-codex available in the API at launch?

kingstnap 10mo ago
> we’re piloting invite-only trusted access to upcoming capabilities and more permissive models Just safety nerds being gatekeepers.
- trunnell 10mo ago
  That’s for future unreleased capabilities and models, not the model released today. They did the same thing for gpt-5.1-codex-max (code name “arcticfox”), delaying its availability in the API and only allowing it to be used by monthly plan users, and as an API user I found it very annoying.
MallocVoidstar 10mo ago
They can't train on the API.
dist-epoch 10mo ago
They say it's because it's too good at hacking stuff.

fellowniusmonk 10mo ago

In all my unpublished tests, which focus on 1. unique logic puzzles that are intentionally adjacent to existing puzzles and 2. implementing a specific unique CRDT algorithm that is not particularly common but has an official reference implementation on github (so the models definitely been trained on it) I find that 5.2 overfits to the more common implementation and will actively break working code and puzzles. I find it to be incorrectly pattern matching with a very narrow focus and will ignore real documented differences even when explicitly highlighted in the prompt text (this is X crdt algo not Y crdt algo.) I've canceled my subscription, the idea that on any larger edits it will just start wrecking nuance and then refuse to accept prompts that point this out is an extremely dangerous form of target fixation.

pillefitz 10mo ago
How does Claude perform?
- fellowniusmonk 10mo ago
  They all have difficulty with certain crdts types in general, 4.5 opus has to go through a round of ask to give it clarifying instructions but then it's fine. Neither get it perfectly as a one shot, claude if you jump straight into agent won't break code but will churn for a bit.

postalcoder 10mo ago

It has become very quickly unfashionable for people to say they like the Codex CLI. I still enjoy working with it and my only complaint is that its speed makes it unideal for pair coding. On top of that, the Codex CLI team is responsive on github and it's clear that user complaints make their way to the team responsible for fine tuning these models. I run bake offs on between all three models and GPT 5.2 generally has a higher success rate of implementing features, followed closely by Opus 4.5 and then Gemini 3, which has troubles with agentic coding. I'm interested to see how 5.2-codex behaves. I haven't been a fan of the codex models in general.

jbm 10mo ago
When Claude screws up a task I use Codex and vice versa. It helps a lot when I'm working on libraries that I've never touched before, especially iOS related. (Also, I can't imagine who is blessed with so much spare tome that they would look down on an assistant that does decent work)
- embedding-shape 10mo ago
  > When Claude screws up a task I use Codex and vice versa Yeah, it feels really strange sometimes. Bumping up against something that Codex seemingly can't work out, and you give it to Claude and suddenly it's easy. And you continue with Claude and eventually it gets stuck on something, and you try Codex which gets it immediately. My guess would be that the training data differs just enough for it to have an impact.
  - extr 10mo ago
    I think Claude is more practically minded. I find that OAI models in general default to the most technically correct, expensive (in terms of LoC implementation cost, possible future maintenance burden, etc) solution. Whereas Claude will take a look at the codebase and say "Looks like a webshit React app, why don't you just do XYZ which gets you 90% of the way there in 3 lines". But if you want that last 10%, codex is vital. Edit: Literally after I typed this just had this happen. Codex 5.2 reports a P1 bug in a PR. I look closely, I'm not actually sure it's a "bug". I take it to Claude. Claude agrees it's more of a product behavioral opinion on whether or not to persist garbage data, and offer it's own product opinion that I probably want to keep it the way it is. Codex 5.2 meanwhile stubbornly accepts the view it's a product decision but won't seem to offer it's own opinion!

mccoyb 10mo ago

If anyone from OpenAI is reading this -- a plea to not screw with the reasoning capabilities! Codex is so so good at finding bugs and little inconsistencies, it's astounding to me. Where Claude Code is good at "raw coding", Codex/GPT5.x are unbeatable in terms of careful, methodical finding of "problems" (be it in code, or in math). Yes, it takes longer (quality, not speed please!) -- but the things that it finds consistently astound me.

tgtweak 10mo ago
Anecdotally I've found it very good in the exact same case for multi-agent workflows - as the "reviewer"
ifwinterco 10mo ago
I think the issue is for them "quality, not speed" means "expensive, not cheap" and they can't pass that extra cost on to customers
- mccoyb 10mo ago
  I'm happy to pay the same right now for less (on the max plan, or whatever) -- because I'm never running into limits, and I'm running these models near all day every day (as a single user working on my own personal projects). I consistently run into limits with CC (Opus 4.5) -- but even though Codex seems to be spending significantly more tokens, it just seems like the quota limit is much higher?
  - Computer0 10mo ago
    I am on the $20 plan for CC and Codex, I feel like a session of usage on CC == ~20% Codex usage / 5 hours in terms of time spent inferencing. It has always seemed way more geneous than I would expect.
    - Aurornis 10mo ago
      Agreed. The $20 plans can go very far when you're using the coding agent as an additional tool in your development flow, not just trying to hammer it with prompts until you get output that works. Managing context goes a long way, too. I clear context for every new task and keep the local context files up to date with key info to get the LLM on target quickly

79a6ed87 10mo ago

My only concern with Codex is that it's not possible to delete tasks. This is a privacy and security risk. Your code diffs and prompts are there (seemingly) forever. Best you can do is "archive" them, which is a fancy word for "put it somewhere else so it doesn't clutter the main page".

Leynos 10mo ago
Terragon is an alternative (hosts Claude and Codex using your OpenAI and Anthropic subscriptions, and also supports Google and Amp) that provides this functionality. I use it because it works out cheaper than Codex Cloud and gives you greater flexibility. Although it doesn't have 5.2-codex yet.
- tgtweak 10mo ago
  Yes but if it's not getting removed at the origin... it's not fixing the actual issue of the context/conversation surviving past an explicit "delete" request. Also let's not forget that anyone proxying LLMs is also man in the middle to any code that goes up/down.
  - Leynos 10mo ago
    79a6ed87’s comment applies to Codex cloud, not the codex CLI, which is what Terragon is using.
throwuxiytayq 10mo ago
It's weird, suspicious, and plain annoying. I like the the tool and my tests have shown it to be very powerful (if a bit rough and buggy), but this is ridiculous - I won't use it for any real world projects until this is fixed. Then again, I wouldn't put much trust into OpenAI's handling of information either way.
moralestapia 10mo ago
`rm -rf ~/.codex/archived_sessions` does the trick

shanev 10mo ago

The GPT models, in my experience, have been much better for backend than the Claude models. They're much slower, but produce logic that is more clear, and code that is more maintainable. A pattern I use is, setup a Github issue with Claude plan mode, then have Codex execute it. Then come back to Claude to run custom code review plugins. Then, of course review it with my own eyes before merging the PR. My only gripe is I wish they'd publish Codex CLI updates to homebrew the same time as npm :)

mrcwinn 10mo ago
I’d agree with you until Opus 4.5.
SamDc73 10mo ago
GPT-5 was the first model that occasionally produced code that I could push without any changes Claude still tends to add "fluff" around the solution and over-engineer, not that the code doesn't work, it's just that it's ugly
lemming 10mo ago
Interesting, I have consistently found that Codex does much better code reviews than Claude. Claude will occasionally find real issues, but will frequently bike shed things I don't care about. Codex always finds things that I do actually care about and that clearly need fixing.
allovertheworld 10mo ago
Eh sonnet 4.5 was better at Rust for me

k_bx 10mo ago

Codex code review has been astounding for my distributed team of devs. Very well spent money.

lacoolj 10mo ago
[flagged]
- cthalupa 10mo ago
  It is common for people to read a word and then re-use it themselves shortly after. Humans are very suggestible.
  - lacoolj 10mo ago
    very true curious if this, or coincidence
    - enraged_camel 10mo ago
      "Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action." -Ian Fleming, Goldfinger (1959)
  - k_bx 10mo ago
    Can't see the original comment, is that about my usage of the "astounding" word? I am Ukrainian (not a native speaker), and it popped up subconsciously, but now that I see it it another comment – very likely I just read it, that's why indeed! Amazing
    - cthalupa 10mo ago
      > Can't see the original comment, is that about my usage of the "astounding" word? It was indeed! > very likely I just read it I find myself doing it frequently. I'm even sure that's why I used indeed above after reading your comment - it wasn't intentional!

freedomben 10mo ago

The cybersecurity angle is interesting, because in my experience OpenAI stuff has gotten terrible at cybersecurity because it simply refuses to do anything that can be remotely offensive (as in the opposite of "defensive"). I really thought we as an industry had learned our lesson that blocking "good guys" (aka white-hats) from offensive tools/capabilities only empowers the gray-hat/black-hats and puts us at a disadvantage. A good defense requires some offense. I sure hope they change that.

mapontosevenths 10mo ago
The article mentions that more permissive models would be invite only. I think it's a solid approach, as long as they don't make getting one of those invites too difficult. > "In parallel, we’re piloting invite-only trusted access to upcoming capabilities and more permissive models for vetted professionals and organizations focused on defensive cybersecurity work. We believe that this approach to deployment will balance accessibility with safety."
- hiAndrewQuinn 10mo ago
  I'm moving into a cybersecurity-focused role, and I for one would be very interested in this. A vetting process makes total sense, but complete lack of access seems like a market inefficiency in the making that the one area where we can't reliably get the frontier models to assist us in pentesting our own stuff without a lot of hedging.
hhh 10mo ago
I use openai models every day for offensive work. haven’t had a problem in a long time
JacobAsmuth 10mo ago
So in general you think that making frontier AI models more offensive in black hat capabilities will be good for cybersecurity?
- artursapek 10mo ago

monster_truck 10mo ago

[flagged]

speedgoose 10mo ago
Devstral 2 struggles with the tools syntax in my own testing. Happy to read that it works with some.
chollida1 10mo ago
What should companies do with people a week before Christmas if not give them work to do? What about 2 weeks before Christmas?

jasonthorsness 10mo ago

Recently I’ve had the best results with Gemini; with this I’ll have to go back to Codex for my next project. It takes time to get a feel for the capabilities of a model it’s sort of tedious having new ones come out so frequently.

tananaev 10mo ago

I was very skeptical about Codex at the beginning, but now all my coding tasks start with Codex. It's not perfect at everything, but overall it's pretty amazing. Refactoring, building something new, building something I'm not familiar with. It is still not great at debugging things. One surprising thing that codex helped with is procrastination. I'm sure many people had this feeling when you have some big task and you don't quite know where to start. Just send it to Codex. It might not get it right, but it's almost always good starting point that you can quickly iterate on.

BinaryIgor 10mo ago
I have similar experiences with Claude Code ;) Have you used it as well? How does it compare?
9dev 10mo ago
I always wonder how people make qualitative statements like this. There are so many variables! Is it my prompt? The task? The specific model version? A good or bad branch out of the non-deterministic solution space? Like, do you run a proper experiment where you hand the same task to multiple models several times and compare the results? Not snark by the way, I’m asking in earnest how you pick one model over another.
- embedding-shape 10mo ago
  > Like, do you run a proper experiment where you hand the same task to multiple models several times and compare the results? This is what I do. I have a little TUI that fires off Claude Code, Codex, Gemini, Qwen Coder and AMP in separate containers for most task I do (although I've started to use AMP less and less), and either returns the last message of what they replied and/or a git diff of what exactly they did. Then I compare them side by side. If all of them got something wrong, I update the prompt, fire them off again. Always starting from zero, and always include the full context of what you're doing with the first message, they're all non-interactive sessions. Sometimes I do 3x Codex instead of different agents, just to double-check that all of them would do the same thing. If they go off and do different things from each other, I know the initial prompt isn't specific/strict enough, and again iterate.

lacoolj 10mo ago

lol I love how OpenAI just straight up doesn't compare their model to others on these release pages. Basically telling us they know Gemini and Opus are better but they don't want to draw attention to it

qwesr123 10mo ago
Not sure why they don't compare with others, but they are actually leading on the benchmarks they published. See here (bottom) for a chart comparing to other models: https://marginlab.ai/blog/swe-bench-deep-dive/ https://marginlab.ai/blog/swe-bench-deep-dive/
- mistercheph 10mo ago
  It's like apple, they just don't want users or anyone to even be thinking of their competitors, the competition doesn't exist, it's not relevant.
- whimsicalism 10mo ago
  is swe-bench saturated? or they switch to swe-bench pro because...?
  - Mkengin 10mo ago
    At least on swe-rebench it does pretty well: https://swe-rebench.com/ https://swe-rebench.com/
dbbk 10mo ago
This was the one thing I scanned for. No comparison against Opus. See ya.
- Mkengin 10mo ago
  Though this Codex version isnt on the leaderboard, GPT-5.2-Medium already seems to be a bit better than Opus 4.5: https://swe-rebench.com/ https://swe-rebench.com/

tonyhart7 10mo ago

very minuscule improvement, I suspect GPT 5.2 is already coding model from the ground up and this codex model include "various optimization + tool" on tops

CjHuber 10mo ago

Somehow Codex for me is always way worse than the base models. Especially in the CLI, it seems that its so way too eager to start writing code nothing can stop it, not even the best Agents.md. Asking it a question or telling it to check something doesn‘t mean it should start editing code, it means answer the question. All models have this issue to some degree, but codex is the worst offender for me.

w-m 10mo ago
Just use the non-codex models for investigation and planning, they listen to "do not edit any files yet, just reply here in chat". And they're better at getting the bigger picture. Then you can use the -codex variant for execution of a carefully drafted plan.
embedding-shape 10mo ago
> Somehow Codex for me is always way worse than the base models. I feel the same. CodexTheModel (why have two things named the same way?!) is a good deal faster than the other models, and probably on the "fast/accuracy" scale it sits somewhere else, but most code I want to be as high quality as possible, and the base models do seem better at that than CodexTheModel.
- drdrey 10mo ago
  have you tried adjusting the reasoning effort?
JeremyNT 10mo ago
Same experience here. I see people gushing over these codex models but they seem worse than the big gpt models in my own actual use (i.e. I'll give the same prompt to gpt-5.1 and gpt-5.1-codex and codex will give me functional but weird/ugly code, whereas gpt-5.1 code is cleaner)
nowittyusername 10mo ago
I've had this issues as well since codex models were introduced. i tried them but 5.1 regular on high thinking always worked better for me. I think its because its thinking is deeper and more nuanced it seemed to understand better what needed doing. I did have to interact more often with it versus Codex which just worked for a long time by itself, but those interactions were worth it in reduction of assumptions and other stuff Codex made. Im gonna try 5,2 Codex today and hope that changes, but so far I've been happy with base 5.1 high thinking.

lkt 10mo ago

I've been doing some reverse engineering recently and have found Gemini 3 Pro to be the best model for that, surprisingly much better than Opus 4.5. Maybe it's time to give Codex a try

sigmar 10mo ago
Curious what your workflow is for reverse engineering with LLMs? Do you run the LLM in an IDE?

mistercheph 10mo ago

Gotta love only comparing the model to other openai models and just like yesterday's gemini thread, the vibes in this thread are so astroturfed. I guess it makes sense for the frontier labs to want to win the hearts and minds of silicon valley.

tptacek 10mo ago
Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- mistercheph 10mo ago
  Sorry, didn't realize.

abshkbh 10mo ago

We have made this model even better at programming in Windows. Give it a shot :)

holtkam2 10mo ago
You mean its ability to use powershell, or something else?
helsinki 10mo ago
Can you invite me? In the off chance, my email is in my profile, but reversed.
lukax 10mo ago
Will it also remove the whole D:\?

catigula 10mo ago

The models aren't smart enough to be fully agentic. This is why Claude Code human-in-the-loop process is 100x more ergonomic.

bgwalter 10mo ago

They found one React bug and spend pages on "frontier" "cyber" nonsense. They make these truly marvelous models only available to "vetted" "security professionals". I can imagine what the vetting looks like: The professionals are not allowed to disclose that the models don't work. EDIT: It must really hurt that ORCL is down 40% from its high due to overexposure in OpenAI.

deleted 10mo ago

[deleted]

ianberdin 10mo ago

Thanks gosh, we have so bloody competition. The models are so good, unbelievable good. And getting better weekly, including pricing.

Alifatisk 10mo ago

> <PLACEHOLDER FOR FRONTEND HTML ASSETS> > [ADD/LINK TO ROLLOUT THAT DISCOVERED VULNERABILITY] What’s up with these in the article?

fragmede 10mo ago

So, uh, I've been being and idiot and running it in yolo mode, and twice now it's gone and deleted the entire project directory, wiping out all of my work. Thankfully I have backups and it's my fault for playing with fire, but yeesh. I have https://gist.github.com/fragmede/96f35225c29cf8790f10b1668b849af7 https://gist.github.com/fragmede/96f35225c29cf8790f10b1668b8... as a guard against that, for anyone that's stupid enough like me to run it in yolo mode and wants to copy it. Codex also has command line options so you can specifically prohibit running rm in bash, so look those up too.

dworks 10mo ago

GPT 5.1 has been pure magic in VSCode via the Codex plugin. I can't tell any difference with 5.2 yet. I hope the Codex plugin gets feature parity with CC, Cursor, Kilo Code etc soon. That should increase performance a bit more through scaffolding. I had assumed OpenAI was irrelevant, but 5.1 has been so much better than Gemini.

kordlessagain 10mo ago

I’ve been using Codex CLI heavily after moving off Claude Code and built a containerized starter to run Codex in different modes: timers/file triggers, API calls, or interactive/single-run CLI. A few others are already using it for agentic workflows. If you want to run Codex securely (or not) in a container to test the model or build workflows, check out https://github.com/DeepBlueDynamics/codex-container https://github.com/DeepBlueDynamics/codex-container. It ships with 300+ MCP tools (crawl, Google search, Gmail/GCal/GDrive, Slack, scheduling, web indexing, embeddings, transcription, and more). Many came from tools I originally built for Claude Desktop—OpenAI’s MCP has been stable across 20+ versions so I prefer it. I will note I usually run this in Danger mode but because it runs in a container, it doesn't have access to ENVs I don't want it messing with, and have it in a directory I'm OK with it changing or poking about in. Headless browser setup for the crawl tools: https://github.com/DeepBlueDynamics/gnosis-crawl https://github.com/DeepBlueDynamics/gnosis-crawl. My email is in my profile if anyone needs help.

pertymcpert 10mo ago
I assume those MCP tools are a library and not actually expected to work all at the same time right?
- kordlessagain 10mo ago
  Yes, you can draw from it. There is a config file you can use to edit to "install" or "remove" them from the build. You can also just ask the agent to do it.
marktolson 10mo ago
Looks good but there is no way I'm installing powershell as a dependency.
- cachius 10mo ago
  Why not?
  - 10mo ago

fragmede 10mo ago

Fwiw, I had some well defined tickets in Jira assigned to me, and 5.2 absolutely crushed them. Still waiting on CI, but games over.

ChrisMarshallNY 10mo ago

> For example, just last week, a security researcher using GPT‑5.1-Codex-Max with Codex CLI found and responsibly disclosed (opens in a new window) a vulnerability in React that could lead to source code exposure. Translation: "Hey y'all! Get ready for a tsunami of AI-generated CVEs!"

mvkel 10mo ago

Fascinating to see the increasing acceptance of AI generated code in HN comments. We've come a long way since gpt-3.5, and it's rewarding to see people who are willing to change their cached responses

scottyah 10mo ago
I started out very anti-ai at work, and I still think it was reasonable at the time. I have completely changed my mind now (as models have improved drastically), and I think you now need to provide a valid excuse for NOT using it in some way/shape/form. A simple webhook to check a PR is a no-brainer unless you're a freakishly superb coder. Some coworkers still seem to waste more time fighting an ever-increasingly-hallucinating chatbot over niche helm chart issues than they would if they had just read the documentation in the first place, but people can abuse any tool.

simianwords 10mo ago

No one's saying this but this is around 40% costlier than the previous codex model. Price change is important.

wahnfrieden 10mo ago
Because the best value is from the subscription where the price is stable
- crazylogger 10mo ago
  From a couple hours of usage in the CLI, 5.2-codex seems to burn through my plan's limit noticeably faster than 5.1-codex. So I guess the usage limit is a set dollar amount of API credits under the hood.

aaa_aaa 10mo ago

I am suspecting there are some shills astroturfing for every LLM release. Or people are overreacting as a result of their unnecessary attachment.

wickedsight 10mo ago
Or, maybe, people are enthusiastic about something that works really well for them. I'm one of those people, LLMs have greatly improved my output on many tasks.
PostOnce 10mo ago
It sure seems like it. That or delirious, misguided fans who want AI to succeed even though there would be no benefit in it for them if that were the case. They'd just be serfs again. I watched a man struggle for 3 hours last night to "prove me wrong" that Gemini 3 Pro can convert a 3000 line C program to Python. It can't do it. It can't even do half of it, it can't understand why it can't, it's wrong about what failed, it can't fix it when you tell it what it did wrong, etc. Of course, in the end, he had an 80 line Python file that didn't work, and if it did work, it's 80 lines, of course it can't do what the 3000 line C program is doing. So even if it had produced a working program, which it didn't, it would have produced a program that did not solve the problems it was asked to solve. The AI can't even guess that it's 80 line output is probably wrong just based on the size of it, like a human instantly would. AI doesn't work. It hasn't worked, and it very likely is not going to work. That's based on the empirical evidence and repeatable tests we are surrounded by. The guy last night said that sentiment was copium, before he went on a 3 hour odyssey that ended in failure. It'll be sad to watch that play out in the economy at large.
- user34283 10mo ago
  AI works. This is evidenced by my side project which I spent some 50 hours on. I'm not sure what your "empirical evidence and repeatable tests" is supposed to be. The AI not successfully converting a 3000 line C program to Python, in a test you probably designed to fail, doesn't strike me as particularly relevant. Also, I suspect that AI could most likely guess that 80 lines of Python aren't correctly replicating 3000 lines of C, if you prompted it correctly.

hmate9 10mo ago

I'm glad we are moving towards more of quality over speed

phplovesong 10mo ago

But when will they release SLOP-1.7-Jizz

mohsen1 10mo ago

Since they are not showing you how this model compares against the benchmarks they are showing, here is a quick view with the public numbers from Google and Anthropic. At least this gives some context: SWE-Bench (Pro / Verified) Model | Pro (%) | Verified (%) --------------------+---------+-------------- GPT-5.2-Codex | 56.4 | ~80 GPT-5.2 | 55.6 | ~80 Claude Opus 4.5 | n/a | ~80.9 Gemini 3 Pro | n/a | ~76.2 And for terminal workflows, where agentic steps matter: Terminal-Bench 2.0 Model | Score (%) --------------------+----------- Claude Opus 4.5 | ~60+ Gemini 3 Pro | ~54 GPT-5.2-Codex | ~47 So yes, GPT-5.2-Codex is good, but when you put it next to its real competitors: - Claude is still ahead on strict coding + terminal-style tasks - Gemini is better for huge context + multimodal reasoning - GPT-5.2-Codex is strong but not clearly the new state of the art across the board It feels a bit odd that the page only shows internal numbers instead of placing them next to the other leaders.

qwesr123 10mo ago
Where are you getting SWE-Bench Verified scores for 5.2-Codex? AFAIK those have not been published. And I don't think your Terminal-Bench 2.0 scores are accurate. Per the latest benchmarks: Opus 4.5 is at 59% GPT-5.2-Codex is at 64% See the charts at the bottom of https://marginlab.ai/blog/swe-bench-deep-dive/ https://marginlab.ai/blog/swe-bench-deep-dive/ and https://marginlab.ai/blog/terminal-bench-deep-dive/ https://marginlab.ai/blog/terminal-bench-deep-dive/
scellus 10mo ago
I like Opus 4.5 a lot, but a general comment on benchmarks: the number of subtasks or problems in each one is finite, and many of the benchmarks are saturating, so the effective number of problems at the frontier is even smaller. If you think of the generalizable capability of the model as a latent feature to be measured by benchmarks, we therefore have only rather noisy estimates. People read too much into small differences in numbers. It's best to aggregate across many, Epoch has their Capabilities Index, and Artificial Analysis is doing something similar, and probably others I don't know or remember. And then there's the part of models that is hard to measure. Opus has some sort of HAL-like smoothness I don't see in other models, but meanwhile, I haven't tried gpt-5.2 for coding yet. (Neither Gemini 3 Pro; I'm not claiming superiority of Opus, just that something in practical usability is hard to measure.)

hereme888 10mo ago

Constantly disconnects in VS Code extension. Have to switch to regular 5.2...

aunty_helen 10mo ago

The biggest question for me is "Why?" They're getting slaughtered by the more focused Anthropic team who decided they will have the best coding model. Given how bad things have been going recently (5.2 chat bombing and being behind, opus being the code GOAT, G team dominating media, Grok existing and meta / the Chinese dominating opensource), they should niche to the general purpose llm before that's all they're left with by market forces. I'm still pretty sour they didn't have the vision at the time to build an ecosystem around them and instead went for those building the ecosystem on them.