4 ms·
I want to believe it's gonna be good, but after trying GPT-5.5 even the most advanced Chinese models seem depressing.
by amunozo 6mo ago
I want to believe it's gonna be good, but after trying GPT-5.5 even the most advanced Chinese models seem depressing.
- ako 6mo agoThen you’ll be happy to learn it’s not Chinese
- dotancohen 6mo agoGP is stating that the second best in the field, the Chinese, is so far behind the best in the field, GPT 5.5, that it is not even worth testing anything else.
- amunozo 6mo agoThanks for the translation, I did not express it very clearly. Anything that I try is so much worse.
- Ritewut 6mo agoIs GPT 5.5 the best in the field? I think Opus is still better despite Anthropic's recent stumbling.
- amunozo 6mo agoI did not try much Opus recently as I had a Codex subscription and heard bad things, but Opus is super good too. Let's say compared to any of them.
- r0b05 6mo agoThis is a French model sir
- lava_pidgeon 6mo agoHonestly I depends on the context which this performance matters. Mistral is quiet cheap
- manishsharan 6mo agoI am not following this obsession with SOTA and benchmark rankings I have been using DeepSeek and GLMnmodels with OpenCode and Codex and Claudr side by side. I have not found the Chinese models lacking. I enjoy for coding and like to maintain full control of my codebade and deeply care about the GOF patterns. So I am very stringent in terms of what I want the LLM to code and how to code. So from my perspective, they are all about the same.
- amunozo 6mo agoThat I agree with, but for more complex autonomous changes the differences are considerable. However, it seems that most models will reach the saturation time in which they will be useful for almost everything and the difference will be in more and more niche and specialized tasks.