2 ms·

Personally I prefer GPT 5.5 writing style over Opus 4.8. It’s much more no nonsense and information denser.

by antupis 3mo ago

sunaookami 3mo ago
That's the first time I saw someone prefering GPT-styled output over Claude ;) It's the complete opposite for me, GPT is way too verbose (even after telling it to STFU), overwhelms the user with thousands of options and doesn't just answer a question without shitting out thousands of paragraphs. Also the overall tone is way too enthusiastic.
- orphea 3mo ago
  Dunno, I prefer GPT 5.5 too for the same reasons as the parent. Extremely subjective but had better results with it too. Maybe I just got unlucky with Claude a few times, but even the latest Opus was dumb.
  - black_knight 3mo ago
    Fascinating how people have such complete diametrically opposed experiences. I guess both models have it in them to behave very differently in different circumstances and we have very little idea what pushes them in this or that direction. I guess it does boil down to luck! Personally, Claude Opus (and in the few interactions I had with it, Fable) has been the far the superior experience. GPT-5.5 seems dumber and more certain about presenting me bullshit. Opus has better humor, and is less pretentious in its presentation. But this may all boil down to how the models react to my prompting. What is without a doubt is that I wish they both were more intelligent – or maybe it is their wisdom I find lacking!
    - antupis 3mo ago
      It might be harness or prompting style. Personally I use opencode and my prompting style is very plain and terse . Where tasks are very small. Opus and Sonet too often are too verbose and go tangent. Where GPT5.5 is much stricter.
- nostrebored 3mo ago
  I strongly prefer codex. Claude is annoying. Codex provides descriptions where I want them and more touchpoints to audit the quality of work. Claude code on experimental seems to not even show diffs when asked anymore, and it's much less clear what is being shipped.

Personally I prefer GPT 5.5 writing style over Opus 4.8. It’s much more no nonsense and information denser.

by antupis 3mo ago

Personally I prefer GPT 5.5 writing style over Opus 4.8. It’s much more no nonsense and information denser.

That's the first time I saw someone prefering GPT-styled output over Claude ;) It's the complete opposite for me, GPT is way too verbose (even after telling it to STFU), overwhelms the user with thousands of options and doesn't just answer a question without shitting out thousands of paragraphs. Also the overall tone is way too enthusiastic.

orphea 3mo ago
Dunno, I prefer GPT 5.5 too for the same reasons as the parent. Extremely subjective but had better results with it too. Maybe I just got unlucky with Claude a few times, but even the latest Opus was dumb.
- black_knight 3mo ago
  Fascinating how people have such complete diametrically opposed experiences. I guess both models have it in them to behave very differently in different circumstances and we have very little idea what pushes them in this or that direction. I guess it does boil down to luck! Personally, Claude Opus (and in the few interactions I had with it, Fable) has been the far the superior experience. GPT-5.5 seems dumber and more certain about presenting me bullshit. Opus has better humor, and is less pretentious in its presentation. But this may all boil down to how the models react to my prompting. What is without a doubt is that I wish they both were more intelligent – or maybe it is their wisdom I find lacking!
  - antupis 3mo ago
    It might be harness or prompting style. Personally I use opencode and my prompting style is very plain and terse . Where tasks are very small. Opus and Sonet too often are too verbose and go tangent. Where GPT5.5 is much stricter.
nostrebored 3mo ago
I strongly prefer codex. Claude is annoying. Codex provides descriptions where I want them and more touchpoints to audit the quality of work. Claude code on experimental seems to not even show diffs when asked anymore, and it's much less clear what is being shipped.