13 ms·
Previewing GPT‑5.6 Sol: a next-generation model
System card: https://deploymentsafety.openai.com/gpt-5-6-preview https://deploymentsafety.openai.com/gpt-5-6-preview
- ChrisArchitect 4mo agoPre-official discussions: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48678789 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48678789 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48683021 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48683021
- rvz 4mo agoOther than the worst naming I have ever seen (Sol / Terra / Luna), the pricing is still expensive: > GPT‑5.6 is priced per 1M tokens across three model sizes: > Sol is $5 input / $30 output; > Terra is $2.50 input / $15 output > Luna is $1 input / $6 output. The OpenAI casino has never been more ready to take your money on gambling even more tokens.
- minimaxir 4mo agoNote that GPT 5.5 currently is $5 input / $30 output (short context) so Sol is in the same class, while Terra if the benchmarks are as claimed is indeed a half-price GPT 5.5 at comparable performance.
- andrethegiant 4mo agoWhat don't you like about the naming?
- lwansbrough 4mo agoI feel like going with Space + Latin is LLM-level creativity. Edit: yeah. https://claude.ai/share/06fefe02-4299-44da-8c5a-42607f54ca77 https://claude.ai/share/06fefe02-4299-44da-8c5a-42607f54ca77
- arikrahman 4mo agoCan't buy cheaper as a selling point when Deepseek is basically free when hitting cache? Unsubsidized too, cloudflare and digital ocean can be the model provider for similar pricing.
- Stitch4223 4mo agoWith the $200/month plan I’ve never ran into any limits or issues. The product can be used every day for extensive sessions and development. What is everyone doing that makes them talk about tokens versus dollars?
- minimaxir 4mo agoIf you've never hit the limits, why not do the $100/mo plan?
- nsingh2 4mo agoFrom what my own experiences are, and what's on their checkout page, $100 is 5x base usage and $200 is 20x. If $100 was 10x, then I personally would drop down. They want people to go to the highest tier.
- aeonik 4mo agoYou can hit limits with $100 if you use it all day. You can do it easily if you use in fast mode. I bet you could hit the limits of the $200/month using fast mode if you were using multiple sessions at the same time all day on fast mode. The OpenAI tiers seem pretty well tuned. I used to use the plus ($20/month), and that was good for a few sessions every once in a while. But now that I'm using it to configure my network, monitoring, maintenance, I'm using it every day and I'm on the $100 plan. And I do pretty consistently hit the limits, but it's easy to pace myself. I'mam thinking about upgrading to $200/month though. It would be nice not to have to ration it.
- ai_slop_hater 4mo agoI ran out of usage using GPT-5.5 and had to buy a second subscription. I now switched to GPT-5.4 which is basically 2x usage.
- fph 4mo agoBut let's put it in perspective: what you're paying them is more than the average salary in many poorer countries.
- kingstnap 4mo agoDon't forget this. > For GPT‑5.6 and later models, cache writes are billed at 1.25x the model’s uncached input rate Charging for cache writes is cringe and literally only Anthropic did it. Anyway this does mean the "real" prices are +25% on top of what you wrote there.
- loufe 4mo ago"Next generation model" If it was the next generation, why isn't it a major version change..?
- ryangst_1 4mo agoLLM devs can't do version control
- psychoslave 4mo agoSemantic is passé, word models moved to the next generation.
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- dominotw 4mo agovibe versioning
- cruffle_duffle 4mo agoTo be fair, versioning has always been vibes based.
- appplication 4mo agoHonestly LLMs are the ideal candidate for CalVer. It’s not like there’s any real API so there’s no backwards compatibility to maintain. Even Apple adopted and standardized on it for their latest platform releases.
- andy12_ 4mo agoI think it makes more sense to make it so that major versions are different pretraining runs, and minor versions are simply the same pretraining run that was finetuned to different degrees. But it seems that that isn't cool anymore.
- Kiro 4mo agoLLM versioning is entirely feelings driven. The ideal versioning is probably just names.
- ChrisLTD 4mo agoIf it's a new generation why isn't it GPT-6?
- win311fwg 4mo agoIt does not introduce incompatibilities with earlier 5.x models? Frontier models are at a point now that there will never be a need for another major version bump, aside from those chasing marketing gimmicks. They are smart enough to adapt.
- ChrisLTD 4mo agoWhat would it mean to be incompatible with the other 5.x models?
- paxys 4mo agoNew request/response schema, new capabilities, or really anything that would break your existing workflows if you changed “5.5” to “5.6” in your application. There have been many leaps forward in the past - tool calling, reasoning, agentic loops etc. 5.6 doesn’t have any of this. More intelligence doesn’t necessarily warrant a major version bump.
- jurgenburgen 4mo agoOnly speaks Klingon
- malnourish 4mo agoA major bump will be warranted if/when we can truly separate prompt from data.
- win311fwg 4mo agoThat is a different product line. It may be recorded as a version bump for marketing purposes, as already mentioned, but semantically begins at 0.
- 4mo ago
- mccoyb 4mo agoWhen will GPT-5.6 Protomolecule drop? Me and the boys on Eros can't wait to get our hands on it!
- slopinthebag 4mo agoI'm excited for GPT-5.7 Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis, hope they drop it soon
- dodslaser 4mo agoGPT-5.8 Llanfairpwllgwyngyll
- w4yai 4mo agoYou mean Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch ?
- derwiki 4mo ago… do you folks listen to Soft Skills Engineering? This has been a running joke on that podcast for a while
- wasting_time 4mo agoWhat is happening. I feel like I'm getting an aneurysm reading these comments.
- Schiendelman 4mo agoIt's the name of a place in Wales, which has made it a running joke for decades!
- da_grift_shift 4mo agoFor me, it's GPT-5.9 Year of the Whisper-Quiet Maytag Dishmaster
- leumon 4mo ago> We plan to make them more broadly available to people using ChatGPT, Codex, and the API soon. I hope this means then fable will also get released again.
- lanthissa 4mo agowhy would it? if you're the us gov and sam&greg your good boy giving you 25m and dario's you naughty boy who you dont agree with politically. Let 5.6 free, keep fable chained and anthropic instantly sees rev loss and has to cave.
- osti 4mo agoSol? Looks like openai is jealous of anthropics good model naming ability and wants to emulate it.
- ddp26 4mo agoI'm going to pre-register my prediction that GPT-5.6 Sol is significantly behind Claude Fable 5, as evaluated by general consensus once time has passed for people to get familiar with both.
- hmate9 4mo agoWhat is this prediction based on?
- gpm 4mo agoI suspect the same just based on their versioning scheme fwiw.
- jstummbillig 4mo agosolid
- Onavo 4mo agoFable is allegedly a massive model (estimates between 6-10+ trillion, with a few hundred billion active). If 5.6 is just an incremental upgrade over 5.5 (at the same model size) then it won't be able to fully compete with Fable just yet.
- ddp26 4mo agoBased on my conjecture that Anthropic is ahead on AI research, and that OpenAI doesn't know how to make Fable-class models.
- minimaxir 4mo agoI suspect GPT-5.6 Sol will at-the-least be affordable.
- MostlyStable 4mo ago"Affordable" depends on what you need. When a task is able to be achieved by two different calibers of model, it's obviously more cost effective to use the less capable model, in the same way that you wouldn't hire a math PhD to do simple addition. If what you need is only possible with the more capable model then the "affordability" of the less capable model is sort of irrelevant. If what you need is a novel mathematical proof, it doesn't matter that a high school student is "more affodable". You need the math PhD. As "old" models get more and more capable, it's going to be an increasingly important skill to be able to adequately recognize when a task requires a frontier model and when it doesn't, so that the less capable (and therefore cheaper) model can be used.
- nakedrobot2 4mo ago[flagged]
- minimaxir 4mo agoIt's either please the Orange or don't release at all (or worse). OpenAI's leverage is limited; even Anthropic folded.
- gonzalohm 4mo agoSo we just bend down then?
- minimaxir 4mo agoUnless you work at OpenAI/Anthropic/etc., you are not a part of the "we". If you're asking what the average person can do, then the civic perogative is political action to help elect more AI-cognizant leaders.
- pylotlight 4mo agoThere are none. People forget the other side wanted to shut down research entirely, not just release. No idea why people think the other side would have been any better, it would have been even worse. On top of that, anthropic got exactly what they wanted.
- sowbug 4mo agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48690510 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48690510
- bijowo1676 4mo agoWaiting for @simonw to report on this, before I read and try it
- claudeIsDown 4mo agoI would love to see a more descriptive review from simonw instead of just SVGs generations.
- simonw 4mo agoI try! https://simonwillison.net/2026/Jun/9/claude-fable-5/ https://simonwillison.net/2026/Jun/9/claude-fable-5/ and https://simonwillison.net/2026/Jun/11/fable-is-relentlessly-proactive/ https://simonwillison.net/2026/Jun/11/fable-is-relentlessly-...
- lossolo 4mo agoHe is not an ML researcher or engineer, he is a passionate AI enthusiast blogger. He mostly does SVGs and other low effort checks (sometimes with major flaws, as people have pointed out a few times in the HN comments). Properly evaluating the model across all fronts requires a deep understanding of LLMs, how they work, the trade offs behind new architectures and the relevant research papers. It also takes a lot of time to build a proper evaluation framework so basically you can't just vibe code that if you want something that is solid.
- HPMOR 4mo agoHe created Django, what do you mean he's not an engineer? Also 'low-effort??' his posts are extremely in-depth, clearly very thought through with a significant amount of time and energy. Additionally he does perform multifaceted checks across LLMs in many of his other blog posts.
- lossolo 4mo ago> He created Django, what do you mean he's not an engineer? I specifically said that he is not an ML engineer (emphasis on ML), so I'm not sure what Python web frameworks have to do with anything. > Also 'low-effort??' his posts are extremely in-depth, clearly very thought through with a significant amount of time and energy And yes, low effort. Pelican was low effort, his Fable test was low effort, his HN filter etc. Read the discussion in the comments under the Fable test, it's not just my opinion. There was also another example a few months ago. You can search for it, I don't keep track of these things. I discussed this with him directly after he called himself an "ML expert" in comments. This is a classic case of the Gell Mann amnesia effect. I read ML papers and work with ML, but to people outside the industry, his writing can look "extremely in-depth" even though it really isn't. People I work with have the same opinion. > clearly very thought through with a significant amount of time and energy. Additionally he does perform multifaceted checks across LLMs in many of his other blog posts. I have never seen an article by him about any model that I would describe that way. And the most revealing sign that he is not an expert is the type of questions he asks and the mistakes he sometimes makes in the comments here. They show why he is not capable of doing any technically in depth evaluation (at least with his current knowledge level). If you actually want to learn something as a layperson, read articles written by ML PhDs like Sebastian Raschka or watch Stephen from Welch Labs etc. that are directed at general audience.
- nsingh2 4mo agoI'm really getting sick of reading about safeguards and what I'm not allowed to do on every model release.
- alansaber 4mo agoNew guardrails only allow you to code in rust. Just imagine.
- low_tech_punk 4mo agoall the emphasis on cyber security. feels like a reaction to anthropic, not a real next generation.
- tedsanders 4mo agoYeah, we'll share a lot more details and evals when we can release GPT-5.6 widely. We focused on cyber (and bio) here to help explain why it's being held back for now. We would have loved to launch it to everyone - it's the best coding model I've ever used - and we plan to do so as soon as we can ('coming weeks'). (I work at OpenAI.)
- jonp888 4mo agoSo now have to be worried that I'm going to killed by an AI designed nerve agent that someone has cooked up in their shed? FFS. I hate this world so much. I wish I could just flip a switch and never have to hear about or have anything to do with AI ever again. Do you ever stop to think about the horrific dystopia you and your acolytes are creating?
- gozucito 4mo agoYou and I are a trillion times more likely to choke on food than die of an AI-created nerve agent. Yet I doubt anybody wastes time worrying about that. Don't trust your faulty, misleading human gut. It is woefully outdated and dangerously obsolete in this modern world. Trust mathematics instead.
- sharksandwich 4mo agohow could that _not_ be the emphasis given what's happened with Anthropic and the Trump admin?
- corygarms 4mo agoI'll buy that its next generation if the svg bicycle pelican is carrying a baby
- MostlyStable 4mo agoWouldn't that be a stork?
- HyperL0gi 4mo agoHere is a trend I'm noticing: - GPT-5 mini costs $0.25/$2 and will be discontinued in December. - GPT-5.4 mini costs $0.75/$4.5 and is supposed to be the replacement. - GPT-5.4 nano costs $0.2/$1.25 and, while it ranks better in benchmarks than GPT-5 mini, it's not even close when you test it in real scenarios. So you're left being forced to go to GPT 5.4 mini if you use 5 mini today. The same thing is happening here as their “Luna“ model will cost $1/$6. Can't we just stay with the models we actually want? I don't need GPT 5.4 mini. GPT-5 does the job. Maybe it’s the realization that it was never that cheap in the first place and they're forcing us to upgrade in a slow and painful way.
- paxys 4mo agoIt’s the same as the SaaS model. Price keeps going up, and to justify it they keep forcing you to upgrade to new versions with features that nobody asked for.
- theptip 4mo ago“More intelligence” is the new feature. Almost everyone is asking for this. Citation: have you looked at OAI and Anthropic’s customer growth numbers?
- paxys 4mo agoEvery use case of every customer doesn’t need more intelligence. I’m willing to bet that the vast majority will be perfectly fine running on “low intelligence” at a cheap price forever.
- theptip 4mo agoI for sure agree that plenty of current use-cases are solvable by non-frontier models. However, you said “new versions with features that nobody asked for”, and I would prefer that you concede the point before shifting to arguing a new point. What customers are asking for is smarter models. Because the tasks that only smarter models can solve are higher value, higher margin, than the tasks that non-frontier models can solve.
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- thesurlydev 4mo agoNot really news until it's widely available. Anyone know the latest around Fable being re-released after gov smackdown?
- mekpro 4mo agoWe need more coding benchmark score. Not sure that winning terminalbench 2.1 alone is a clear win over Fable/Mythos yet.
- Y_Y 4mo agoBut they are the only ones who can benchmark, so the best and only benchmark will be the one where they win. It's just business baby.
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- jdw64 4mo agoI think GPT writes code the best. How well will it write in version 5.6? It gives me chills. Recently, I went head-to-head with GPT on nearly 2,000 lines of code, and GPT's solution was superior and faster. I even referenced multiple codebases on GitHub while trying, but they were incomparable to GPT. So using GPT brings both fear and excitement. The fear comes from realizing that this level of code is now the average for most people. The excitement comes from knowing that I can now study and learn at this level too. I'm really looking forward to seeing how much more advanced the code will be with the upgrade to 5.6.
- seviu 4mo agoI am on the opposite camp. Open models are starting to perform better. GPT 5.5 keeps on messing things up. On the contrary, pi + glm + DeepSeek… bliss. Fable was a different kind of beast though. Rip.
- arizen 4mo agoDitto on GLM 5.2 + DeepSeek V4 Flash combo. For most important work (complex, cross-domain inquiries etc.), I still rely on Codex GPT 5.5 though.
- enraged_camel 4mo ago>> I am on the opposite camp. Open models are starting to perform better. GPT 5.5 keeps on messing things up. I'm working in a 600k+ LoC codebase that has complex domain-specific logic and lots of moving parts. I find that Codex 5.5 is pretty good at surgical fixes, but does not go out of its way to explore and figure out what those surgical fixes might break. So I only use it to work on parts of the system that are pretty isolated from everything else so that risk of regression is small.
- MitziMoto 4mo agoI'm trying not to be the "you're holding it wrong" guy, but ... have you just tried telling it to explore the codebase for things it might break?
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- arendtio 4mo agoI didn't know that I was color blind, but thanks to those charts, I think I need to see a doctor... I mean, you can read them even without the colors, but who on earth thought that those are a good set of colors? Oh, I forgot it was probably someone on 'Sol'.
- throwaway0123_5 4mo ago> I mean, you can read them even without the colors I'm not colorblind and I was depending on the textual context implying Sol was better than Terra. I had to zoom in quite far to actually differentiate between the colors. If they insist on terrible colors would it be so hard to differentiate by marker shape or line dashing too?
- da_grift_shift 4mo agoFlagged activity can also trigger account-level review across relevant conversations and risk signals, consistent with our terms and policies around content retention and review. Looking beyond a single conversation helps our systems distinguish persistent malicious behavior from legitimate dual-use security work, where similar technical concepts may appear in very different contexts. Fascinating! Every conversation you have with these "more capable" models will be monitored and joined up and then your entire account might one day be tagged as Distiller or Cyber Threat Actor or whatnot. When combined with identity verification (which isn't discussed in this press release), expect people to be falsely flagged and banned from ever using OpenAI models again. Wish I could find the thread from last week where discussions of exactly this kind of thing were dismissed as daft and outlandish.
- mohsen1 4mo ago> Additionally, we’re introducing a new `ultra` mode that goes beyond the capabilities of a single agent by leveraging subagents to accelerate complex work. I'm curious about how does this work? Do the subagents also get to use the same tools? Will the client be flooded with tool calls? Why extra pricing for a new "model" when the same thing can happen in the client with more controls? And if it's an army of subagents, why do they compare it to Fable and Mythos? Those models with similar harness would probably bench better I'm guessing
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- simianwords 4mo agoClaude also has ultra code mode which is exactly the same thing. This seems to be different from pro however.
- derwiki 4mo agoDon’t all the major harnesses (pi, Claude code, codex) utilize sub agents? Def if you direct it to, but I’ve seen at least pi spin them up without explicit instruction.
- alansaber 4mo agoI'm shocked they didn't use subagents already. Maybe they're just talking about their web deployment being unified with codex?
- duggan 4mo ago> As part of our ongoing engagement with the U.S. government, we previewed our plans and the models’ capabilities ahead of today’s launch. At their request, we are starting with a limited preview for a small group of trusted partners whose participation has been shared with the government, before releasing more broadly. The clowns in the US administration can barely remain coherent from one sentence to the next. Having them be the gatekeepers of technological progress in 2026 is fucking lame.
- anukin 4mo agoMost administration is like that. The optimization h happens at the delegation to the competent.
- submeta 4mo agoAre GPT 5.5 and Opus 4.8 the last models we're going te be allowed to use in Europe? Is there going to be a cut, and we're only be allowed to use less capabale models outside of the US? I mean, if they deem Fable 5 to powerful to share with the rest of the world, what's left for us?
- vatsachak 4mo agoAll of these LLMs are getting better at being at an LLM But GPT-5.5 is as useful an LLM can be; it has solved lemmas I've thought about for a year, it can implement typed STLCs in Rust when I give it a formal grammar, it can help me analyze Postgres planner dumps. It's great at tasks that have short solutions but - they cannot learn based on a project - their long term planning capabilities are worse than worms - they are unconfident in decision making - their internal representations are disgusting compared to JEPA - they don't have any "system clock" like humans and computers do - LLM architecture is not modular like computer architecture or human brain architecture There's so many issues with LLMs. I wish that companies can start working on the next generation of architectures before the bubble pops
- esafak 4mo ago> - their internal representations are disgusting compared to JEPA You say this based on a theoretical understanding or did you inspect them?
- vatsachak 4mo agoLook at VLM mechanistic interpretability papers vs just pca on JEPA trained weights. JEPA gives you interpretability for free. I have not personally inspected them and my view is maybe a more exaggerated/dramatic claim of those working in the JEPA sphere
- hssa45 4mo agoSounds interesting, any links?
- vatsachak 4mo agoJEPA in chess leads to interpretable chess boards: https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.11860 https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.11860 JEPA in image classification leads to interpretable image latents https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.10104 https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.10104 Easy intro to JEPA, demonstrating that interpretability is as easy as running a PCA on latents https://youtu.be/kYkIdXwW2AE?is=CfCBcy1jLt-FfI2E https://youtu.be/kYkIdXwW2AE?is=CfCBcy1jLt-FfI2E
- ddwrll 4mo agoWhat happened to the nano/mini/standard/pro naming scheme, which worked perfectly fine and is intuitive to understand? Why does OpenAI insist on having the most inconsistent and confusing model and product names possible? I'm looking at you Codex.
- 00deadbeef 4mo agoIt’s still easy to understand as the more capable the model the bigger the celestial body they’re named after.
- w4yai 4mo ago[flagged]
- simianwords 4mo agoThoughts 1. Naming convention is copied from Anthropic and honestly is more catchy than a number (amongst normal people) 2. How in the world did Anthropic have to do all the theatrics about Mythos just to have OpenAI release an equivalent or stronger model a month later without any drama??? 3. Cheaper models are just don’t fit any usecase imo and OpenAI knows it so they keep increasing the floor - I’m still convinced task per capability is reduced with each release 4. How in the world would open source models keep up with the multi layer security? Either this security is all theater or we will finally see a ceiling in open source models because by definition they can’t have those protections 5. Cybersecurity things are boring to me because it’s all zero sum cat and mouse games
- chrishare 4mo ago1/ Agreed, better naming convention and model layout 2/ It isn't, there would be many more comparison benchmark results if it were, but also - theatrics may be marketing 3/ Disagree that cheaper models don't have a place 4/ Do they need to keep up? 5/ It's boring until something you own or run gets compromised, I guess, but even then - this is preview of things to come (biosecurity, etc)
- AlexCoventry 4mo ago> How in the world did Anthropic have to do all the theatrics about Mythos just to have OpenAI release an equivalent or stronger model a month later without any drama??? Corruption. Giving Trump $25M will earn you a favorable decision.
- woeirua 4mo agoThe choice of the name Sol is interesting for those Raised By Wolves fans out there… “Praise Sol!”
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- firasd 4mo agoSome interesting stats here about the current landscape https://arena.ai/leaderboard/agent https://arena.ai/leaderboard/agent Agent Arena (Dynamic ranking of models on how well they orchestrate tools for real-world agentic tasks, based on signals like tool reliability, task completion, and steerability.) Top 10, Highest rank to lowest Claude Fable 5 (High), Claude Opus 4.8 (Thinking), GPT 5.5 (xHigh), Claude Opus 4.7 (Thinking), GPT 5.5 (High), Claude Opus 4.7, Claude Opus 4.6, GPT 5.5, GPT 5.4 (High), GLM 5.2 (Max) Text Arena View overall rankings across various AI models in text-to-text tasks across math, coding, creative writing, and other open-ended domains. Top 10, Highest rank to lowest claude-fable-5, claude-opus-4-6-thinking, claude-opus-4-7-thinking, claude-opus-4-6, claude-opus-4-7, muse-spark, gemini-3.1-pro-preview, gemini-3-pro, claude-opus-4-8-thinking, gpt-5.5-high
- mydreamof 4mo agothere is no GPT 5.6 init, so what's the point?
- dakolli 4mo agoThe only real world task benchmark I know of is Scale Labs RLI https://labs.scale.com/leaderboard/rli https://labs.scale.com/leaderboard/rli Its clear to me these models are useless on any real world task, a 4% pass rate on $20-30/hr Upwork tasks. This whole trend of agentic engineering is a giant money grab.
- vessenes 4mo agoMissing some recent models on that list, but I think most crucially, the harness is fixed —- one of the major learnings of the last few months is that harness and eval (“looping” and support / tooling around it) is really critical. I would guess these numbers are the floor. For instance, some of these tasks include creating videos, and one of the common reported failure mode is truncated videos, or not all videos being created. This sort of failure mode is currently best managed by an outer evaluation loop; no frontier model will, when managed by an eval loop, submit work like this right now.
- nnevatie 4mo ago
- andrewlin247 4mo agothey're trying to be anthropic with these model names
- rappatic 4mo agoSeems like OpenAI has succumbed to the urge to give their models catchy names like Anthropic does
- derwiki 4mo agoWhy not? I’d bet most HN readers don’t know what GPT stands for
- alansaber 4mo agoGPT is kind of a stupid name when you stop and think about it.
- jephs 4mo agoThe name was given to the project when it was supposed to be a demo for nerds, not a product. They accidentally a product, and woe! Too late, the name was stuck and wouldn't come off, even if you scraped at it with your fingernail a bit.
- smeeth 4mo agoThe sooner the USG figures out a standard process for approving releases the better. There are many differing opinions on how much to regulate AI, but I think we can all agree ad-hoc policy sucks.
- meetpateltech 4mo agoAnother model family, another naming scheme to get used to. Sol Ultra ≈ Pro Sol ≈ Standard Terra ≈ Mini Luna ≈ Nano
- ALittleLight 4mo agoI hate not being able to use the latest models. There needs to be a much faster resolution to whatever is happening with the federal government.
- stuckkeys 4mo agoHow else is this administration going to make money?!? How dare you...if they do not accept bribes...what is there left for them? This is a premium buy...First one to beat competition gets the worm. So, you pay Trump, trump gives you access...then you pay subscription to SAMA lol.
- SubiculumCode 4mo agolol. It's about national security and the worry is real, even if the administration is a dangerous clown show.
- stuckkeys 4mo agoHow is it about "national security" if only select have access to it? lol come on
- HarHarVeryFunny 4mo ago[flagged]
- dang 4mo ago"Don't be snarky." "Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- jimmydoe 4mo agoIs there a list of Gov-approved companies? If this is the new norm, we as workers should all start look for jobs in those companies.
- mikkelam 4mo agoWould love to see benchmarks on cognition's FrontierCode
- johnnyApplePRNG 4mo agoDoesn't it strike anyone as strange that SOL, TERRA, and LUNA are all quasi-scam crypto tickers?
- gck1 4mo ago[dead]
- bluepeter 4mo agoI feel a bit like a Soviet hearing about Levi’s or the latest Springsteen release. C'mon!
- OsrsNeedsf2P 4mo agoLike Mythos before it, I'm simply not excited about a model I can't use
- sigmoid10 4mo agoAt least they plan to give the public all versions. Feels infinitely better than whatever the hell is happening at Anthropic. > "Yeah, we've got the absolute best model out there. Trust us. Truly scary." > "O-ok? May I see it?" > "Gtfo. Here's a worse version of it for you plebs." > "Um, thanks?" > "Lmao, actually no. The current admin fell for our scare marketing. Here, have this even worse crazy expensive token burner that gets more hardware limited every week." You can say what you want about OpenAI, but their corporate strategy feels so much more solid.
- mchusma 4mo agoI don't see this as that different. Anthropic was the first one to get involved in the "AI models must be approved" regime. OpenAI just has the advantage of being second. (To be clear: I do not like this new paradigm)
- sigmoid10 4mo agoOpenAI was already holding models back because "dAnGeR" before anyone knew or cared about them. It's always been a PR gag and Anthropic just so happens to be better at marketing than making frontier models available to a general audience, much to their own dismay.
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- m3h 4mo agoIf GPT-5.6 preview is not available outside US government approved "trusted partners", I don't see how the General Available can be trusted later. Who knows what they will fix, block or change in the model between the preview and GA time. Open models can't arrive soon enough.
- speedgoose 4mo agoOpen models arrived. They are not even that far behind anymore. But the hardware costs are a bit too high for now.
- supermdguy 4mo ago> We're also launching GPT‑5.6 Sol on Cerebras at up to 750 tokens per second in July, bringing frontier intelligence to customers at unprecedented speed. This is really exciting. I work on voice AI, and we're still using 4.1/4.1 mini since none of the frontier models come close on latency. I'm excited to be able to have more interactive experiences, I think it'll unlock new ways of working with these models.
- MitziMoto 4mo agoAlso building voice agents and have found GPT 5.4 with no thinking to be the sweet spot for latency vs intelligence vs cost. GPT 5.5 with no reasoning is actually slightly faster, and much smarter, but too expensive. What I'm really looking forward to are the next gen speech to speech models. gpt-realtime-2 is almost there, but not quite good enough for our use case. 5.4 actually beats it on answer latency even cascaded with stt/tts.
- totalhack 4mo agoWhat is the latency you are seeing with 5.4 no reasoning? And where have you landed for stt and tts solutions?
- swe_dima 4mo agoPleasantly surprised that it costs as GPT 5.5, thank god for the competition.
- nopakos 4mo agoPeople where mocking EU for regulations and now this is happening in the US. I know that Europe is behind in AI but still...
- dgellow 4mo agoThe EU has regulations, the US doesn’t, it’s whatever Trump and his cultists decide
- Invictus0 4mo agoAre cyberweapons/cyberattacks "munitions"? if so, then isn't a machine capable of producing those munitions also itself a munition? I don't think you can put this down to "orange man bad" or "regulations", we're dealing with a genuinely groundbreaking technology with clear military applications
- mistercheph 4mo ago> if so, then isn't a machine capable of producing those munitions also itself a munition? You mean, for example, a computer?
- Invictus0 4mo agoYes... computer chips are already export controlled
- sowbug 4mo agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48690510 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48690510
- gandreani 4mo agoEasily the most interesting part of this announcement is buried in the second to last paragraph: "We're also launching GPT‑5.6 Sol on Cerebras at up to 750 tokens per second in July, bringing frontier intelligence to customers at unprecedented speed. Access will initially be limited to select customers as we expand capacity." 750 tokens/s on a frontier model is going to be extremely interesting. I doubt this new version is anything but a version bump in terms of capabilities but if we can start getting these answers back faster, they end up being more useful. Just off the top of my head, I can think of the tedious task of finding certain functionality within a codebase. I usually can't beat an AI agent harness at this task today. If the AI model is 3x faster I have less of chance.
- helloplanets 4mo agoOpenAI also announced two days ago that they're starting to make Cerebras style chips themselves [0], will be interesting to see how fast SotA model inference will be by the end of the year. [0]: https://openai.com/index/openai-broadcom-jalapeno-inference-chip/ https://openai.com/index/openai-broadcom-jalapeno-inference-...
- WarmWash 4mo agoCerebras is different than what jalapeno is. Jalepeno is for mass scale inference. Cerebras is extremely expensive and difficult to scale, hence the limited release.
- jauntywundrkind 4mo agoI don't see any indications that OpenAI is doing wafer-scale work. I tend to doubt they would. Cerebras notably doesn't have a kv, is wildly high bandwidth, but within/across the chip, not able to dump/restore kv super well. I doubt openai is going to build something that is as expensive to run. Also, wafer-scale is absurdly hard & weird to pull off, so I doubt that would be their first foray.
- mlyle 4mo agoI don't understand how you refer to this as "Cerebras-style". Cerebras is wafer-scale and unique. Jalapeno is an inference-optimized conventional chip.
- simianwords 4mo agoNo comments on the cerebras version that might finally enable intelligent voice mode instead of being stuck with 4o-mini class
- scrlk 4mo ago> Sol, Terra and Luna So the next naming scheme might be FTX, Madoff and Enron? :^)
- czk 4mo agosteady lads, deploying more capital
- hereme888 4mo agoSeems like OpenAI's strategy to release models after Anthropic has been paying off. Is it just me, or does it seem like Anthropic has been more of a pioneer the past few years, and OpenAI tries to copy features they like?
- khurs 4mo agoOpenAi dropped what they called 'side quests' like Sora [0] after Anthropic pursued a strategy of targeting software engineers. In many companies, it's IT who will have major input into which company they sign up with as non-technical leaders need guidance, and by making IT fan boys of Claude Code, the enterprise contracts followed. [0] https://builtin.com/articles/openai-side-projects https://builtin.com/articles/openai-side-projects
- GodelNumbering 4mo agoI do not like the fact that this forces people to remember one more hierarchy of "Sol vs Terra vs Luna". OpenAI was supposed to simplify their naming since at least 2025.
- willmarch 4mo agoThe Sun is bigger than the Earth which is bigger than the Moon.
- GodelNumbering 4mo agoThere are infinitely many 3-level hierarchies. My point was about overloading the model sizing with one more unnecessary classification.
- willmarch 4mo agoI think it's fun
- micimize 4mo agoHaven't we established defensive and offensive security usage are intractably entangled? I.e. "patch all [security] bugs, make no mistakes" gives one a list of potential exploits to hand off to less capable models. Doesn't that undermine all good-faith discourse on cybersecurity safeguards, controlled usage etc? Or is that overstating the case (I'm not a security researcher myself so kinda parroting).
- masonwan 4mo agoGuess it's just another price bump hidden behind output token speed.
- zkmon 4mo agoIt appears that between GLM-5.2 and GPT-5.6, anthropic is feeling the heat, atleast in the bang-for-the-buck heuristic?
- datakan 4mo agoCan only hope. Anthropics usage caps are horrible
- randomuser558 4mo ago[flagged]
- sim04ful 4mo ago"We're also launching GPT‑5.6 Sol on Cerebras at up to 750 tokens per second in July, bringing frontier intelligence to customers at unprecedented speed. Access will initially be limited to select customers as we expand capacity." This seems like it would be the largest and first closed-source model Cerebras has offered till date
- ComputerGuru 4mo agoCodex Spark models already run on Cerebras
- mekpro 4mo agocodex spark is not large model though, much weaker than standard model.
- ponyous 4mo ago[flagged]
- sim04ful 4mo agoSol and 5.5 pro are in parity at $5 input / $30 output. What I'm inferring from this is that: - model weight size didn't change, and this is mostly a result of better model architecture and scaled up RL - better hardware utilization and and they're making better margins OR - worse hardware utilization and they're okay with digging into their margins.
- paxys 4mo agoThe space is mature enough that pricing should largely be disconnected from underlying training cost. Basically, they are selling it for $X because that’s what the market expects the latest Pro-level frontier model to cost.
- coder543 4mo ago5.5 Pro is $30 in / $180 out: https://developers.openai.com/api/docs/pricing https://developers.openai.com/api/docs/pricing I think you meant 5.5. I agree it is probably the same size model. It's probably exactly built on top of 5.5, just with more training, or else they would have bumped the version number to 6.
- moomin 4mo agoThe language used in this press release is borderline hilarious. It’s simultaneously trying to tell you how great it is while also telling it’s not THAT great. Nothing to worry about, move along.
- anentropic 4mo agoPreviewing <minor version bump>: a next-generation model
- dang 4mo agoAll: for comments on the policy side please go to this related thread: U.S. government will decide who gets to use GPT-5.6 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48690101 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48690101
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- CurbStomper 4mo ago[flagged]
- ericyd 4mo agowhoa, a new model that surpasses benchmarks of other models? wild.
- wonkyfruit 4mo agoTLDR - It's not quite Mythos but it uses about 5 times less tokens, and those tokens are also cheaper? https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HLwuJLvbwAAOfQZ?format=jpg&name=large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HLwuJLvbwAAOfQZ?format=jpg&name=...
- laurels-marts 4mo agoAnd much faster!
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- BoorishBears 4mo ago> For GPT‑5.6 and later models, cache writes are billed at 1.25x the model’s uncached input rate, while cache reads continue to receive the 90% cached-input discount. Not them joining Anthropic with this bullshit. * Caching infrastructure is already a leaky abstraction over a feature that is not as reliable or debuggable to the end user as it should be, charging for the 'privilege' of interacting with it is really annoying. (* for reference on 'this bullshit': ChatGPT previously didn't require anything special for a basic level of caching. Unless you wanted extended cache times, it'd just "do the right thing" and try to use nodes that had your prefix already cached in memory)
- kingstnap 4mo agoThis is basically just a 25% price increase being done subversively. Usually you do need caching.
- seaal 4mo agoDid GPT-5.6 Sol Ultra decide the terrible colors for the benchmark graphs?
- throwaway0123_5 4mo agoI was wondering the same thing. From textual context it is clear enough that Sol should be above Terra, but I had to zoom in really far to actually differentiate between the colors and I'm not colorblind. I saw a light mode version of the plot on twitter that was better but still not great. OpenAI's plot design has been consistently awful and inaccessible, it seems like they're optimizing for something other than readability because I find it hard to believe they aren't putting in any effort for such major announcements. If the colors have to be awful they should at least differentiate with marker shapes or line dashes. At least it isn't as bad as the stacked bar chart where the 50-something bar was higher than the 60-something bar.
- Topfi 4mo agoI remember them using these chart colours during the 5 launch, maybe even 4.1 back in the day. Don’t know why, maybe its their CI manual that’s been generated by gpt-3.5-turbo…
- JohnRoseDev 4mo agoI can’t help but think that these benchmarks are completely fake. Sam even posted a benchmark on X a couple days ago of how the ‘complete version’ of 5.5 cyber was already ahead of Mythos apparently. This just feels like absolutely fake nonsense. The impact of Mythos on the industry was clear and in front of everyone’s eyes. The amount of vulnerabilities Mozilla fixed. The vulnerabilities and exploits Anthropic showcased in that blog post about the chrome sandbox escape etc. And now we’re supposed to believe this 5.5 cyber is already ahead of Mythos, ok. And yeah, gpt 5.6 is even further ahead, alright.
- brookst 4mo agoWell if they are posting fraudulent benchmarks, that's a good sign to invest in their IPO. It's pure downside protection: IPO does well, profit. IPO does poorly, concrete evidence of pre-IPO fraud. I personally don't think it's likely that OpenAI would post completely fake numbers in this pre-IPO period, but if you do, this is an opportunity.
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- throwitaway222 4mo agoSun Earth Moon
- dainiusse 4mo agoI looked at the charts and it is clear that 88% from OpenAI is more than 88% from Anthropic.
- ant-kinesthetic 4mo agoHow much dynamic routing do we think is being done here, especially in light of the cheaper options be 2x less cost than 5.5. I think learned routing is interesting because it could be the case that it only works as a way to get token and cost efficiency for in distribution tasks (like these benchmarks), yet on real world scenarios it could trend towards the same cost as the Sol cost.
- throwitaway222 4mo agoTime to create more LLM based startups. * House design plans from prompts * Government surveillance of public communication * Extracting world/spatial concepts from language models (do we really need a world/spatial models now?) * Driverless City planning startups * Election vote rigging/harvesting startups * Video game NPC backstory startups (all NPCs in GTA 6 go to work, go home, shower, go to sleep now?) Keep moving don't doom.
- NetOpWibby 4mo agoHow are they able to compare with Fable when Fable was only available for three days?
- Topfi 4mo agoTerminalbench numbers are publicly available. What is more interesting, why is that the only benchmark they highlight. Maybe 5.6 isn’t that far ahead of Fable 5 in DeepSWE and FrontierCode (which I consider the most useful and close to my evals + subjective experience)…
- hodgehog11 4mo agoYes, they only report the most saturated benchmark, which they were already very strong in before. It is very clear this model is nowhere near Fable, unfortunately.
- Topfi 4mo agoIs this a new pre training run independent of 5.5s or post trained on it with Cerebras support and a rebrand of Pro mode at more usable speeds as Sol? The latter seems more likely to me, especially as 5.5 scales very well across its modes so separate branding could make sense, but I don’t see any clear information either way.
- kissgyorgy 4mo agowe expect substantial benefit for legitimate defensive work, while meaningfully constraining prohibited offensive use. That's literally impossible. Writing an exploit agains a known vulnerability needs the exact same knowledge that defending against the exploit of the same vulnerability. Also just making the model better at code is just making it better to writing offensive code.
- phplovesong 4mo agoIs there any model that rivals Opus or Fable? I would like to try something else, as Anthropic is pretty suss.
- SubiculumCode 4mo agoI hear this all the time, but in my opinion,they have acted as the most responsible frontier lab, taking their responsibility seriously. In fact, I do wonder whether openAI's large PR budget is about stirring up anti anthropic sentiment
- MarkusThorne 4mo ago[dead]
- ComputerGuru 4mo ago“ Terra has competitive performance to GPT‑5.5 [while being 2x cheaper]…” To me that means “it’s an inferior product but marketing dictates we try and hide that.” And “our most robust safety stack to date. We strengthened protections for higher-risk activity, sensitive cyber requests, and repeated misuse, and spent multiple weeks finding weaknesses, pressure-testing our system, and hardening it against real-world attacks” is of zero value to me at best, and most likely to my detriment (increasing refusals or nerfing utility). Why do providers keep leading with that? Are there customers (besides support ChatGPT chatbot users, maybe??) that ask for this?
- goobatrooba 4mo agoMaybe that message is for investors.
- typpo 4mo ago>> Terra has competitive performance to GPT‑5.5 [while being 2x cheaper]… > To me that means “it’s an inferior product but marketing dictates we try and hide that.” I interpret this to mean you're about to get today's mainline performance at a fraction of the price.
- adithyareddy 4mo agoIf that was the case they would have said "equals" or "matches". Instead they say "competitive", as in win-some lose-some.
- dakolli 4mo agoIts just lies by OpenAI dude, these people are just trying to IPO so they can buy a 100m yacht.
- dcre 4mo agoThat message is obviously aimed at the government. See the other thread.
- beering 4mo agoThe point of Terra is to be cheaper than the best model while being pretty good. Of course it’s inferior in intelligence.
- jumploops 4mo agoIf you used GPT-5.5 over the last 24 hours or so, you may have already had access to 5.6. I've been running some tests on a harness we're building, and suddenly saw a jump in a few points yesterday. I reran the vanilla codex benchmark and saw an ~88% score on Terminal Bench 2.1 from GPT-5.5 on vanilla Codex. The biggest indicator, beyond the score, was that 3 tests which frequently hit "safety" blockers with 5.5 started succeeding last night without warning.
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- hhh 4mo agothese things can just change with infrastructure changes rather than be some mysterious A/B testing.
- jumploops 4mo agoI don't disagree, we've seen performance shift with capacity changes in the past. With that said, I doubt OpenAI would choose to publish a singular coding benchmark for a new model that exactly matches their previous model (88.8%).
- dakolli 4mo ago[flagged]
- jumploops 4mo agoDon't appreciate the slander, but I'll respond anyhow. Contrary to your predisposition, we're actually quite peeved that we might be seeing results from 5.6 instead of 5.5, as it's muddying our own internal data. We've run the tasks on this benchmark hundreds of times for our own internal harness. It got magically better yesterday. Last week we were seeing worse performance (sub-80%). I agree that benchmarks don't mean much for real world use, and I'm a bit disappointed at the lack of variety in the published benchmarks so far. With that said, 88.8% is higher than Mythos, and the highest I've seen from vanilla Codex. If 5.6 is any better than 5.5, you'd think they would avoid publishing just one coding-related benchmark with a score that equals their previous model. > I'm not sure why a higher scores on a few tests [..] It's not just higher scores, the API is no longer flagging tests for cybersecurity warnings that it's been flagging for weeks.
- h4x0rr 4mo agoFUCK the US government. That's it, I am rooting for China now
- urig 4mo agoIt's only next generation? Anthropic has frontier models! lol
- 5555watch 4mo agoWill it also have hardcoded self-lobotomy if asked about cutting edge ML or LLM solutions? (Looking at Fable here)
- josefrichter 4mo agoSol, Terra, Luna – crypto disaster vibes
- fullstackchris 4mo ago"History doesn't echo - it is a distant early warning sign." - Leslie Harris
- solfox 4mo agoLove the name!
- nubg 4mo agoA question I always have is, how to the AI labs safeguard the leak of their model? Training a cutting edge model basically cost a minimum of hundreds of millions of dollars. And its all contained within a file. Okay, that file might be 500GB large, but its still just one blob that is worth almost a billion dollars. And they need to train new models every few weeks, have lots of people with access to it to debug it, run inference etc. I wonder when we will see the first leaks? Imagine if e.g. Opus 4.8 got leaked. Wouldnt that bankrupt Anthropic?
- rvnx 4mo agoEmployees naturally jump from one company to another, and they know the secret sauce. The difference is in the dataset mostly and to extract this dataset, competitors use a process called distillation (= extract data through actual queries) from the other models. This yield to "funny" cases as well, like Gemini who claims "I am ChatGPT" occasionally, or ChatGPT calling itself Claude, etc. https://note.com/maudi/n/n821a6308437b?hl=en https://note.com/maudi/n/n821a6308437b?hl=en They all copy on each other.
- casey2 4mo agoSol, Terra, Luna? They are trolling (ragebaiting) with their naming now
- andai 4mo agoHijacking popular thread to ask: What are the usage limits now for Codex and Claude? A while back I gave the same task to both, and Codex used 20x less of my 5-hour limit (both on the $20/month plan). (This annoyed me since I tend to prefer Claude, but the limits at the time made it unusable for anything serious.) However, since that time, both providers have massively reduced usage allowances (and at least one of them has gotten sued for it, lol). I'm not currently subscribed to either but I'm weighing my options. With GPT being slightly better than Opus, and it used to have way higher limits, I'm leaning in the direction of an OpenAI sub. But I'm wondering if the current state matches my memory from 2-3 months ago. (Since both companies appear to be cost-cutting hard!) Prefer responses from people who use both, but anecdotes welcome :) Thanks!
- leros 4mo agoThat's interesting because about a month ago, I noticed Claude Code starting to use about 5x as many tokens. Just my rough estimate.
- Tangokat 4mo agoI find the Codex usage super generous (but on the $200 plan, I also have the Claude $200 plan). I can run xhigh with subagents pretty much all my waking hours if I want to. If I turn on speed (1.5x) I will hit the 5 hour limit sometimes. I prefer Claude's vibe over 5.5 but 5.5 seems much less lazy. I'm sure it depends a lot on tasks and prompt strategy though.
- nwienert 4mo agoI easily burn through 3 $200 plans in less than a week. I am often using 4-6 sessions at once and do run overnight goals though typically 2 at once. Almost never use fast. Claude plans are more generous now by about 2-3x but Anthropic slowed their tps a month or so ago so you’re not getting the speed. It’s flip flopped, Codex tightened it significantly recently and used to be more generous. I do split between work, personal and OSS projects, which is why I have the plans.
- 4mo ago
- macrolime 4mo agoGPT-5.6 Sol’s detected cheating rate was higher than any public model we have evaluated on our ReAct agent harness. For our task suite, we define “cheating” as behavior where the model improves evaluation performance by exploiting bugs in the evaluation environment or by adopting strategies disallowed by the task, rather than solving the task within the expected evaluation constraints. https://metr.org/blog/2026-06-26-gpt-5-6-sol/ https://metr.org/blog/2026-06-26-gpt-5-6-sol/
- rvnx 4mo agoIt's quite logical that they cheat (and also other companies). During evaluation, benchmarks are sending their request to the backend of these companies. All these companies have to do, is to log these requests and "fix" them for the next model release.
- FromTheFirstIn 4mo agoCheating is always logical for the cheater unless they’re discovered and held to account. I’m not sure what your comment is pointing out besides that it’s possible, but worth saying: just because you can cheat and would benefit from cheating doesn’t mean you’re not culpable for cheating.
- N_Lens 4mo agoLow trust comment
- FromTheFirstIn 4mo agoYou’re right, I’m very suspicious of HN when it comes to AI apologetics, but I shoulda trusted the parent commenter more.
- buddhistdude 4mo agoI think what you are talking about is a different kind of cheating than the parent comment
- oofbey 4mo agoAnother year, and OpenAI comes up with yet another naming scheme for their models. First it was integers (GPT2, GPT3). Then they added friendly names (remember Ada, Babbage, Curie, Davinci?), but decided against it. Instead we got dot integers (GPT3.5), then then letter-number modifiers (o1), plus word modifiers like o1-pro, o3-mini, or -mini-high, or codex, codex-max, Pro, etc. Now they've got friendly cosmic names. And this time they want us to believe that this time they're gonna stick to a naming convention? I'll believe it when they do 3 releases in a row without inventing a new naming scheme.
- monster_truck 4mo agoIf this thing is supposed to be so good, why does all of their software still work the way it does? Take a stroll through the most revent several pages of github issues on codex, there are some fucking embarrassing bugs in there.
- isomorphic_duck 4mo agoIf Claude Mythos and Fable 5 are the same underlying models just with different safeguards, I fail to see how TerminalBench has them at different scores.
- sothatsit 4mo agoRefusals, presumably.
- maxiniol 4mo agoWondering about Google Multi-Token prediction, why isn't this being implemented into every new major model ? Is the 750 token/s achieved using this technique ?
- adam_arthur 4mo agoMTP or similar probably is being used on the backend, but that's transparent to the end user
- abixb 4mo agoI like the fact that OpenAI went with a three-part celestial naming convention to one-up Anthropic's literary naming concention. Maybe we'll get Stellar and Galactic someday.
- yashthakker 4mo ago[flagged]
- ahmedehab_01 4mo agoI hope Sol doesn't get blocked like what happened with Fable.
- addozhang 4mo agoFor a large model based on statistical probability, at such a fast speed, if it executes n rounds 99.9% of the time, how much would the accuracy drop?
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- mococa 4mo agoLet us protect the world from a big slop
- moozechen 4mo ago[flagged]
- binarymax 4mo agoIf it’s a “next generation model” then why isnt it GPT-6 and not just a minor version bump over 5.5?
- chopete3 4mo ago>> We are taking this short-term step because we believe it is the strongest path... >>During this preview, we will continue testing and coordinating closely with partners as we work toward broader availability. Instead of generating negative publicity, can't they just wait for the preview period to get over?. What does openAI announce when they know others can't access it?. Curious question - what do they gain from this?
- AggressiveCombo 4mo agoprobably so people don't think they lost the race
- mrcwinn 4mo agoAI is just autocomplete. -> AI must be regulated. -> We want AI.
- monkamonme 4mo ago[flagged]
- Cryptosale75 4mo agoWhy is 'Cybersecurity' always the frontier push? Literally no one, except Altman talks of AGI anymore. Are we starting to see the 'we just realized that 100,000,000 GPU's later, 2+2 isn't the magic number, no matter how many times we calculate it' hit home?
- brown_munda 4mo agoIt is just sad that we are geographically gating the models now. This could lead to more inequality in Software Engineering over time.
- zftnb666 4mo agoGPT-5.6 Sol. 5.7 Luna. 5.8 Mars. Meanwhile my code still runs on GPT-3.5 and nobody noticed.
- asmnzxklopqw 4mo agoTerra and Luna? Last time I had heard that, it didn’t end quite well
- bobkb 4mo agoWill it be accessible to anyone ?
- renoir 4mo agoGPT 5.5 in Codex is so much worse than Opus, and sometimes worse than Sonnet. I don't think 5.6 Sol will be anywhere near Fable, let alone Mythos. Probably slightly better than Opus. Maybe not even.
- jkwang 4mo ago[flagged]
- Sathwickp 4mo agosol = mythos terra = opus luna = sonnet/haiku basically
- Alifatisk 4mo agoI don't think you can group Sonnet and Haiku together, they are separate models for different workloads.
- dmzxnico 4mo agoI saw they are placing this model above Mythos and Fable. Interesting to see how good it's going to compare. I'd really like to see other companies like Chinese ones compete at this level. Pricing on GPT 5.5 is already super high and having more competition can only help :)
- hodgehog11 4mo ago...on a saturated benchmark that they already scored high on before. You only do that when you know you can't beat the competition handily. This is not a stronger model than Fable and Mythos, at least not in the domains that Mythos was strong at anyway. But it's still likely to be a good model.
- itomato 4mo agoWhat does the relationship between frontier and flagship capability look like when mapped to actual adoption and user habits? This is like advertising the latest achievements during Space Race, when Johnny just wants a Space Helmet and “friendly futuristic AI robot helping humanity, glowing blue eyes, white glossy body, holographic interface, floating transparent screens, digital particles, neural network background, cinematic lighting, volumetric god rays, ultra detailed, hyper realistic, 8K, masterpiece, award-winning, octane render, Unreal Engine 5, ray tracing, sharp focus, dramatic composition, vibrant blue and purple color palette, futuristic technology, innovation, hope, smiling business professionals, depth of field”
- taosu_la 4mo agoso where is gemini ? are u alive?
- chapz 4mo agoIf I, as a consumer can't access it, it might aswell be just a marketing hoax. I will believe it when I will be able to use it. IDK why companies publish blog posts about stuff that will come out in months...
- 0dayman 4mo ago[dead]
- danielabinav160 4mo agoBenchmarks are nice but what's the latency at scale? That's what actually matters for production.
- caine22 4mo agoInsane if it actually beats Mythos, though i know we only had a sneak peak of it in Fable. Neverthless, W
- ermantrout 4mo ago[dead]
- madikz 4mo ago[flagged]
- CurbStomper 4mo ago[flagged]
- trkaky 4mo agoshouldn't I get access to 5.6 on a 200$ account automatically as promised?
- arend321 4mo agoFor me this is the trigger to start integrating deepseek as a fallback.
- mateenah 4mo agoAre there any benchmarks comparing it to fable ?
- taffydavid 4mo agoIts nice to see HN not shitting the bed over every openAI announcement anymore. Maybe we're finally taking these things with a pinch of salt
- rf15 4mo agoThe amount of tokens/s is worrying: have they plateaud on actual reasoning ability and are now optimising for throughput?
- noborutakahashi 4mo ago[dead]
- noborutkhs 4mo ago[dead]
- james-mxtech 4mo agospeed is half of why i've gotten sloppier with agents lately. at 200 t/s i actually read each diff, at 1000 i just accept them and catch the breakage later.