6 ms·

Whats interesting to me is that these gpt-5.3 and opus-4.6 are diverging philosophically and really in the same way that actual engineers and orgs have diverged

Whats interesting to me is that these gpt-5.3 and opus-4.6 are diverging philosophically and really in the same way that actual engineers and orgs have diverged philosophically With Codex (5.3), the framing is an interactive collaborator: you steer it mid-execution, stay in the loop, course-correct as it works. With Opus 4.6, the emphasis is the opposite: a more autonomous, agentic, thoughtful system that plans deeply, runs longer, and asks less of the human. that feels like a reflection of a real split in how people think llm-based coding should work... some want tight human-in-the-loop control and others want to delegate whole chunks of work and review the result Interested to see if we eventually see models optimize for those two philosophies and 3rd, 4th, 5th philosophies that will emerge in the coming years. Maybe it will be less about benchmarks and more about different ideas of what working-with-ai means

karmasimida 8mo ago
> With Codex (5.3), the framing is an interactive collaborator: you steer it mid-execution, stay in the loop, course-correct as it works. > With Opus 4.6, the emphasis is the opposite: a more autonomous, agentic, thoughtful system that plans deeply, runs longer, and asks less of the human. Ain't the UX is the exact opposite? Codex thinks much longer before gives you back the answer.
- xd1936 8mo ago
  I've also had the exact opposite experience with tone. Claude Code wants to build with me, and Codex wants to go off on its own for a while before returning with opinions.
  - mrkstu 8mo ago
    Its likely that both are steering towards the middle from their current relative extremes and converging to nearly the same place.
    - gervwyk 8mo ago
      also my experience in using these two models. they are trying to recover from oversteer perhaps.
  - mercnz 8mo ago
    well with the recent delays i can easily find claude code going off on it's own for 20 minutes and have no idea what it's going to come back with. but one time it overflowed it's context on a simple question, and then used up the rest of my session window. in a way a lot of ai assistants have ime have this awkward thing where they complicate something in a non-visible and think about it for a long time burning up context before coming up with a summary based upon some misconception.
    - esperent 8mo ago
      The key is a well defined task with strong guardrails. You can add these to your agents file over time or you can probably just find someone's online to copy the basics from. Any time you find it doing something you didn't expect or don't like, add guardrails to prevent that in future. Claude hooks are also useful here, along with the hookify plugin to create them for you based on the current conversation.
      - vorticalbox 8mo ago
        I have started using openspec for this. I find it works far better to have a proposal and a list of tasks the ai stays more focused. https://openspec.dev/ https://openspec.dev/
    - zen4ttitude 7mo ago
      For complex tasks I ask ChatGPT or Grok to define context then I take it to Claude for accurate execution. I also created a complete pipeline to use locally and enrich with skills, agents, RAG, profiles. It is slower but very good. There is no magic, the richer the context window the more precise and contained the execution.
  - kamban 7mo ago
    Same here, CC gives me options to pick direction after the planning stage.
  - PeterStuer 7mo ago
    In terms of 'tone', I have been very impressed with Qwen-code-next over the last 2 days, especially as I have it running locally on a single modest 4090.
    - turtle4 7mo ago
      Did you set that up following a guide or anything you could share?
      - mathrawka 7mo ago
        not OP, but I got it running on my 4090 (and RAM) by following this guide: https://unsloth.ai/docs/models/qwen3-coder-next https://unsloth.ai/docs/models/qwen3-coder-next I see around 30 t/s
      - PeterStuer 7mo ago
        Easiest way I know is to just use LMStudio. Just download and press play :). Optional, but recommended, increase the context length to 262144 if you have the DRAM available. It will definitely get slower as your interaction prolongs, but (at least for me) still tolerable speed.
- WilcoKruijer 8mo ago
  Yes, you’re right for 4.5 and 5.2. Hence they’re focusing on improving the opposite thing and thus are actually converging.
- bt1a 8mo ago
  This is most likely an inference serving problem in terms of capacity and latency given that Opus X and the latest GPT models available in the API have always responded quickly and slowly, respectively
- cwyers 8mo ago
  Codex now lets you tell the LLM tgings in the middle of its thinking without interrupting it, so you can read the thinking traces and tell it to change course if it's going off track.
  - fluidcruft 8mo ago
    That just seems like a UI difference. I've always interrupted claude code added a comment and it's continued without much issue. Otherwise if you just type the message is queued for next. There's no real reason to prefer one over the other except it sounds like codex can't queue messages?
    - esperent 8mo ago
      The problem is if you're using subagents, the only way to interject is often to press escape multiple times which kills all the running subagents. All I wanted to do was add a minor steering guideline. This might be better with the new teams feature.
      - cruffle_duffle 8mo ago
        That is so annoying too because it basically throws away all the work the subagent did. Another thing that annoys me is the subagents never output durable findings unless you explicitly tell their parent to prompt the subagent to “write their output to a file for later reuse” (or something like that anyway) I have no idea how but there needs to be ways to backtrack on context while somehow also maintaining the “future context”…
      - Skwrm 7mo ago
        They actually made a change a few weeks ago that made subagents more steerable When they ask approval for a tool call, press down til the selector is on "No" and press tab, then you can add any extra instructions
    - int_19h 7mo ago
      Codex can queue messages, but the queue only gets flushed once the agent is done with whatever it was working on, whereas Claude will read messages and adjust accordingly in the middle of whatever it is doing. It sounds like OP is saying that Codex can now do this latter bit as well.
utilize1808 8mo ago
I think it's the opposite. Especially considering Codex started out as a web app that offers very little interactivity: you are supposed to drop a request and let it run automatously in a containerized environment; you can then follow up on it via chat --- no interactive code editing.
- Rperry2174 8mo ago
  Fair I agree that was true of early codex and my perception too.. but today there are two announcements that came out and thats what im referring to. specifically, the GPT-5.3 post explicitly leans into "interactive collaborator" langauge and steering mid execution OpenAI post: "Much like a colleague, you can steer and interact with GPT-5.3-Codex while it’s working, without losing context." OpenAI post: "Instead of waiting for a final output, you can interact in real time—ask questions, discuss approaches, and steer toward the solution" Claude post: "Claude Opus 4.6 is designed for longer-running, agentic work — planning complex tasks more carefully and executing them with less back-and-forth from the user."
  - fluidcruft 8mo ago
    Frankly it seems to be that codex is playing catch-up with claude code and claude code is just continuing to move further ahead. The thing with claude code is it will work longer... if you want it to. It's always had good oversight and (at least for me) it builds trust slowly until you are wishing it would do more at once. When I've used codex (it has been getting better) but back in the day it would just do things and say it's done and you're just sitting there wondering "wtf are you doing?". Claude code is more the opposite where you can watch as closely as you want and often you get to a point where you have enough trust and experience with it that you know what it's going to do and don't want to bother.
  - stingraycharles 8mo ago
    I think those OpenAI announcements are mainly because this hasn’t been the case for them earlier, while it has been part of Claude Code since the beginning. I don’t think there’s something deeply philosophical in here, especially as Claude Code is pushing stronger for asking more questions recently, introduced functionality to “chat about questions” while they’re asked, etc.
d--b 8mo ago
I am definitely using Opus as an interactive collaborator that I steer mid-execution, stay in the loop and course correct as it works. I mean Opus asks a lot if he should run things, and each time you can tell it to change. And if that's not enough you can always press esc to interrupt.
mcintyre1994 8mo ago
This kind of sounds like both of them stepping into the other’s turf, to simplify a bit. I haven’t used Codex but use Claude Code, and the way people (before today) described Codex to me was like how you’re describing Opus 4.6 So it sounds like they’re converging toward “both these approaches are useful at different times” potentially? And neither want people who prefer one way of working to be locked to the other’s model.
cchance 8mo ago
Just because you can inject steering doesn't mean they stered away from long running... Theres hundreds of people who upload Codex 5.2 running for hours unattended and coming back with full commits
giancarlostoro 8mo ago
> With Opus 4.6, the emphasis is the opposite: a more autonomous, agentic, thoughtful system that plans deeply, runs longer, and asks less of the human. This feels wrong, I can't comment on Codex, but Claude will prompt you and ask you before changing files, even when I run it in dangerous mode on Zed, I can still review all the diffs and undo them, or you know, tell it what to change. If you're worried about it making too many decisions, you can pre-prompt Claude Code (via .claude/instructions.md) and instruct it to always ask follow up questions regarding architectural decisions. Sometimes I go out of my way to tell Claude DO NOT ASK ME FOR FOLLOW UPS JUST DO THE THING.
- Rperry2174 8mo ago
  yeah I'm mostly just talking about how they're framing it: "Claude Opus 4.6 is designed for longer-running, agentic work — planning complex tasks more carefully and executing them with less back-and-forth from the user" I guess its also quite interesting that how they are framing these projects are opposite from how people currently perceive them and I guess that may be a conscious choice...
  - giancarlostoro 8mo ago
    I get what you mean now, I like that to be fair, sometimes I want Claude to tell me some architectural options, so I ask it so I can think about what my options are, sometimes I rethink my problem if I like Claudes conclusion.
ghosty141 8mo ago
I'm personally 100% convinced (assuming prices stay reasonable) that the Codex approach is here to stay. Having a human in the loop eliminates all the problems that LLMs have and continously reviewing small'ish chunks of code works really well from my experience. It saves so much time having Codex do all the plumbing so you can focus on the actual "core" part of a feature. LLMs still (and I doubt that changes) can't think and generalize. If I tell Codex to implement 3 features he won't stop and find a general solution that unifies them unless explicitly told to. This makes it kinda pointless for the "full autonomy" approach since effecitly code quality and abstractions completely go down the drain over time. That's fine if it's just prototyping or "throwaway" scripts but for bigger codebases where longevity matters it's a dealbreaker.
- _zoltan_ 8mo ago
  I'm personally 100% convinced of the opposite, that it's a waste of time to steer them. we know now that agentic loops can converge given the proper framing and self-reflectiveness tools.
  - sealeck 8mo ago
    Converge towards what though... I think the level of testing/verification you need to have an LLM output a non-trivial feature (e.g. Paxos/anything with concurrency, business logic that isn't just "fetch value from spreadsheet, add to another number and save to the database") is pretty high.
    - replygirl 8mo ago
      in the new world, engineers have to actually be good at capturing and interpreting requirements
      - halfcat 8mo ago
        In this new world, why stop there? It would be even better if engineers were also medical doctors and held multiple doctorate degrees in mathematics and physics and also were rockstar sales people.
techbro_1a 8mo ago
> With Codex (5.3), the framing is an interactive collaborator: you steer it mid-execution, stay in the loop, course-correct as it works. This is true, but I find that Codex thinks more than Opus. That's why 5.2 Codex was more reliable than Opus 4.5
rozumbrada 8mo ago
I read this exact comment with I would say completely the same words several times in X and I would bet my money it's LLM generated by someone who has not even tried both the tools. This AI slop even in the site like this without direct monetisation implications from fake engagement is making me sick...
blurbleblurble 8mo ago
Funny cause the situation was totally flipped last iteration.
bob1029 8mo ago
I think there is another philosophy where the agent is domain specific. Not that we have to invent an entirely new universe for every product or business, but that there is a small amount of semi-customization involved to achieve an ideal agent. I would much rather work with things like the Chat Completion API than any frameworks that compose over it. I want total control over how tool calling and error handling works. I've got concerns specific to my business/product/customer that couldn't possibly have been considered as part of these frameworks. Whether or not a human needs to be tightly looped in could vary wildly depending on the specific part of the business you are dealing with. Having a purpose-built agent that understands where additional verification needs to occur (and not occur) can give you the best of both worlds.
hbarka 8mo ago
How can they be diverging, LLMs are built on similar foundations aka the Transformer architecture. Do you mean the training method (RLHF) is diverging?
- iranintoavan 8mo ago
  I'm not OP but I suspect they are meaning the products / tooling / company direction, not necessarily the underlying LLM architecture.
pyrolistical 8mo ago
Boing vs airbus philosophy
adarsh2321 8mo ago
[dead]
jhancock 8mo ago
Good breakdown. I usually want the codex approach for code/product "shaping" iteratively with the ai. Once things are shaped and common "scaling patterns" are well established, then for things like adding a front end (which is constantly changing, more views) then letting the autonomous approach run wild can *sometimes* be useful. I have found that codex is better at remembering when I ask to not get carried away...whereas claude requires constant reminders.
drsalt 8mo ago
be rich, hire an ai guy, let him deal with it
dimgl 8mo ago
Did you get those backwards? Codex, Gemini, etc. all wait until the requests are done to accept user feedback. Claude Code allows you to insert messages in between turns.
- aurareturn 8mo ago
  Codex added an experimental feature to allow steering mid task.
dboon 8mo ago
…what? It is quite literally the opposite. This isn’t a matter of taste or perception.
sfmike 8mo ago
It's the opposite? codex course corrects and is self inquisitive. opus is just wrong and need to refeed it it's wrong.
rippeltippel 8mo ago
Grabbing popcorn...
aulin 8mo ago
Admit I didn't follow the announcements but isn't that a matter of UI? Doesn't seem something that should be baked in the model but in the tooling around it and the instructions you give them. E.g. I've been playing with with GitHub copilot CLI (that despite the bad fame is absolutely amazing) and the same model completely changes its behavior with the prompt. You can have it answer a question promptly or send it on a multi-hour multi-agent exploration writing detailed specs with a single prompt. Or you can have it stop midway for clarification. It all depends on the instructions. Also this is particularly interesting with GitHub billing model as each prompt counts 1 request no matter how many tokens it burns.
- F7F7F7 8mo ago
  It depends honestly. Both are prone to doing the exact opposite of what you asked. Especially with poor context management. I’ve had both $200 plans and now just have Max x20 and use the $20 ChatGPT plan for an inferior Codex. My experience (up until today) has always been that Codex acts like that one Sr Engineer that we all know. They are kind of a dick. And will disappear into a dark hole and emerge with a circle when you asked for a pentagon. Then let you know why edges are bad for you. And yes, Anthropic is pivoting hard into everything agentic. I bet it’s not too long before Claude Code stops differentiating models. I had Opus blow 750k tokens on a single small task.
mdale 7mo ago
I think it's just both companies building/ marketing to the strength of their competitor. As general perception has been the opposite for codex and Opus respectfully.
mi_lk 7mo ago
It’s the opposite way

karmasimida 8mo ago

> With Codex (5.3), the framing is an interactive collaborator: you steer it mid-execution, stay in the loop, course-correct as it works. > With Opus 4.6, the emphasis is the opposite: a more autonomous, agentic, thoughtful system that plans deeply, runs longer, and asks less of the human. Ain't the UX is the exact opposite? Codex thinks much longer before gives you back the answer.

xd1936 8mo ago
I've also had the exact opposite experience with tone. Claude Code wants to build with me, and Codex wants to go off on its own for a while before returning with opinions.
- mrkstu 8mo ago
  Its likely that both are steering towards the middle from their current relative extremes and converging to nearly the same place.
  - gervwyk 8mo ago
    also my experience in using these two models. they are trying to recover from oversteer perhaps.
- mercnz 8mo ago
  well with the recent delays i can easily find claude code going off on it's own for 20 minutes and have no idea what it's going to come back with. but one time it overflowed it's context on a simple question, and then used up the rest of my session window. in a way a lot of ai assistants have ime have this awkward thing where they complicate something in a non-visible and think about it for a long time burning up context before coming up with a summary based upon some misconception.
  - esperent 8mo ago
    The key is a well defined task with strong guardrails. You can add these to your agents file over time or you can probably just find someone's online to copy the basics from. Any time you find it doing something you didn't expect or don't like, add guardrails to prevent that in future. Claude hooks are also useful here, along with the hookify plugin to create them for you based on the current conversation.
    - vorticalbox 8mo ago
      I have started using openspec for this. I find it works far better to have a proposal and a list of tasks the ai stays more focused. https://openspec.dev/ https://openspec.dev/
  - zen4ttitude 7mo ago
    For complex tasks I ask ChatGPT or Grok to define context then I take it to Claude for accurate execution. I also created a complete pipeline to use locally and enrich with skills, agents, RAG, profiles. It is slower but very good. There is no magic, the richer the context window the more precise and contained the execution.
- kamban 7mo ago
  Same here, CC gives me options to pick direction after the planning stage.
- PeterStuer 7mo ago
  In terms of 'tone', I have been very impressed with Qwen-code-next over the last 2 days, especially as I have it running locally on a single modest 4090.
  - turtle4 7mo ago
    Did you set that up following a guide or anything you could share?
    - mathrawka 7mo ago
      not OP, but I got it running on my 4090 (and RAM) by following this guide: https://unsloth.ai/docs/models/qwen3-coder-next https://unsloth.ai/docs/models/qwen3-coder-next I see around 30 t/s
    - PeterStuer 7mo ago
      Easiest way I know is to just use LMStudio. Just download and press play :). Optional, but recommended, increase the context length to 262144 if you have the DRAM available. It will definitely get slower as your interaction prolongs, but (at least for me) still tolerable speed.
WilcoKruijer 8mo ago
Yes, you’re right for 4.5 and 5.2. Hence they’re focusing on improving the opposite thing and thus are actually converging.
bt1a 8mo ago
This is most likely an inference serving problem in terms of capacity and latency given that Opus X and the latest GPT models available in the API have always responded quickly and slowly, respectively
cwyers 8mo ago
Codex now lets you tell the LLM tgings in the middle of its thinking without interrupting it, so you can read the thinking traces and tell it to change course if it's going off track.
- fluidcruft 8mo ago
  That just seems like a UI difference. I've always interrupted claude code added a comment and it's continued without much issue. Otherwise if you just type the message is queued for next. There's no real reason to prefer one over the other except it sounds like codex can't queue messages?
  - esperent 8mo ago
    The problem is if you're using subagents, the only way to interject is often to press escape multiple times which kills all the running subagents. All I wanted to do was add a minor steering guideline. This might be better with the new teams feature.
    - cruffle_duffle 8mo ago
      That is so annoying too because it basically throws away all the work the subagent did. Another thing that annoys me is the subagents never output durable findings unless you explicitly tell their parent to prompt the subagent to “write their output to a file for later reuse” (or something like that anyway) I have no idea how but there needs to be ways to backtrack on context while somehow also maintaining the “future context”…
    - Skwrm 7mo ago
      They actually made a change a few weeks ago that made subagents more steerable When they ask approval for a tool call, press down til the selector is on "No" and press tab, then you can add any extra instructions
  - int_19h 7mo ago
    Codex can queue messages, but the queue only gets flushed once the agent is done with whatever it was working on, whereas Claude will read messages and adjust accordingly in the middle of whatever it is doing. It sounds like OP is saying that Codex can now do this latter bit as well.

utilize1808 8mo ago

I think it's the opposite. Especially considering Codex started out as a web app that offers very little interactivity: you are supposed to drop a request and let it run automatously in a containerized environment; you can then follow up on it via chat --- no interactive code editing.

Rperry2174 8mo ago
Fair I agree that was true of early codex and my perception too.. but today there are two announcements that came out and thats what im referring to. specifically, the GPT-5.3 post explicitly leans into "interactive collaborator" langauge and steering mid execution OpenAI post: "Much like a colleague, you can steer and interact with GPT-5.3-Codex while it’s working, without losing context." OpenAI post: "Instead of waiting for a final output, you can interact in real time—ask questions, discuss approaches, and steer toward the solution" Claude post: "Claude Opus 4.6 is designed for longer-running, agentic work — planning complex tasks more carefully and executing them with less back-and-forth from the user."
- fluidcruft 8mo ago
  Frankly it seems to be that codex is playing catch-up with claude code and claude code is just continuing to move further ahead. The thing with claude code is it will work longer... if you want it to. It's always had good oversight and (at least for me) it builds trust slowly until you are wishing it would do more at once. When I've used codex (it has been getting better) but back in the day it would just do things and say it's done and you're just sitting there wondering "wtf are you doing?". Claude code is more the opposite where you can watch as closely as you want and often you get to a point where you have enough trust and experience with it that you know what it's going to do and don't want to bother.
- stingraycharles 8mo ago
  I think those OpenAI announcements are mainly because this hasn’t been the case for them earlier, while it has been part of Claude Code since the beginning. I don’t think there’s something deeply philosophical in here, especially as Claude Code is pushing stronger for asking more questions recently, introduced functionality to “chat about questions” while they’re asked, etc.

d--b 8mo ago

I am definitely using Opus as an interactive collaborator that I steer mid-execution, stay in the loop and course correct as it works. I mean Opus asks a lot if he should run things, and each time you can tell it to change. And if that's not enough you can always press esc to interrupt.

mcintyre1994 8mo ago

This kind of sounds like both of them stepping into the other’s turf, to simplify a bit. I haven’t used Codex but use Claude Code, and the way people (before today) described Codex to me was like how you’re describing Opus 4.6 So it sounds like they’re converging toward “both these approaches are useful at different times” potentially? And neither want people who prefer one way of working to be locked to the other’s model.

cchance 8mo ago

Just because you can inject steering doesn't mean they stered away from long running... Theres hundreds of people who upload Codex 5.2 running for hours unattended and coming back with full commits

giancarlostoro 8mo ago

> With Opus 4.6, the emphasis is the opposite: a more autonomous, agentic, thoughtful system that plans deeply, runs longer, and asks less of the human. This feels wrong, I can't comment on Codex, but Claude will prompt you and ask you before changing files, even when I run it in dangerous mode on Zed, I can still review all the diffs and undo them, or you know, tell it what to change. If you're worried about it making too many decisions, you can pre-prompt Claude Code (via .claude/instructions.md) and instruct it to always ask follow up questions regarding architectural decisions. Sometimes I go out of my way to tell Claude DO NOT ASK ME FOR FOLLOW UPS JUST DO THE THING.

Rperry2174 8mo ago
yeah I'm mostly just talking about how they're framing it: "Claude Opus 4.6 is designed for longer-running, agentic work — planning complex tasks more carefully and executing them with less back-and-forth from the user" I guess its also quite interesting that how they are framing these projects are opposite from how people currently perceive them and I guess that may be a conscious choice...
- giancarlostoro 8mo ago
  I get what you mean now, I like that to be fair, sometimes I want Claude to tell me some architectural options, so I ask it so I can think about what my options are, sometimes I rethink my problem if I like Claudes conclusion.

ghosty141 8mo ago

I'm personally 100% convinced (assuming prices stay reasonable) that the Codex approach is here to stay. Having a human in the loop eliminates all the problems that LLMs have and continously reviewing small'ish chunks of code works really well from my experience. It saves so much time having Codex do all the plumbing so you can focus on the actual "core" part of a feature. LLMs still (and I doubt that changes) can't think and generalize. If I tell Codex to implement 3 features he won't stop and find a general solution that unifies them unless explicitly told to. This makes it kinda pointless for the "full autonomy" approach since effecitly code quality and abstractions completely go down the drain over time. That's fine if it's just prototyping or "throwaway" scripts but for bigger codebases where longevity matters it's a dealbreaker.

_zoltan_ 8mo ago
I'm personally 100% convinced of the opposite, that it's a waste of time to steer them. we know now that agentic loops can converge given the proper framing and self-reflectiveness tools.
- sealeck 8mo ago
  Converge towards what though... I think the level of testing/verification you need to have an LLM output a non-trivial feature (e.g. Paxos/anything with concurrency, business logic that isn't just "fetch value from spreadsheet, add to another number and save to the database") is pretty high.
  - replygirl 8mo ago
    in the new world, engineers have to actually be good at capturing and interpreting requirements
    - halfcat 8mo ago
      In this new world, why stop there? It would be even better if engineers were also medical doctors and held multiple doctorate degrees in mathematics and physics and also were rockstar sales people.

techbro_1a 8mo ago

> With Codex (5.3), the framing is an interactive collaborator: you steer it mid-execution, stay in the loop, course-correct as it works. This is true, but I find that Codex thinks more than Opus. That's why 5.2 Codex was more reliable than Opus 4.5

rozumbrada 8mo ago

I read this exact comment with I would say completely the same words several times in X and I would bet my money it's LLM generated by someone who has not even tried both the tools. This AI slop even in the site like this without direct monetisation implications from fake engagement is making me sick...

blurbleblurble 8mo ago

Funny cause the situation was totally flipped last iteration.

bob1029 8mo ago

I think there is another philosophy where the agent is domain specific. Not that we have to invent an entirely new universe for every product or business, but that there is a small amount of semi-customization involved to achieve an ideal agent. I would much rather work with things like the Chat Completion API than any frameworks that compose over it. I want total control over how tool calling and error handling works. I've got concerns specific to my business/product/customer that couldn't possibly have been considered as part of these frameworks. Whether or not a human needs to be tightly looped in could vary wildly depending on the specific part of the business you are dealing with. Having a purpose-built agent that understands where additional verification needs to occur (and not occur) can give you the best of both worlds.

hbarka 8mo ago

How can they be diverging, LLMs are built on similar foundations aka the Transformer architecture. Do you mean the training method (RLHF) is diverging?

iranintoavan 8mo ago
I'm not OP but I suspect they are meaning the products / tooling / company direction, not necessarily the underlying LLM architecture.

pyrolistical 8mo ago

Boing vs airbus philosophy

adarsh2321 8mo ago

[dead]

jhancock 8mo ago

Good breakdown. I usually want the codex approach for code/product "shaping" iteratively with the ai. Once things are shaped and common "scaling patterns" are well established, then for things like adding a front end (which is constantly changing, more views) then letting the autonomous approach run wild can *sometimes* be useful. I have found that codex is better at remembering when I ask to not get carried away...whereas claude requires constant reminders.

drsalt 8mo ago

be rich, hire an ai guy, let him deal with it

dimgl 8mo ago

Did you get those backwards? Codex, Gemini, etc. all wait until the requests are done to accept user feedback. Claude Code allows you to insert messages in between turns.

aurareturn 8mo ago
Codex added an experimental feature to allow steering mid task.

dboon 8mo ago

…what? It is quite literally the opposite. This isn’t a matter of taste or perception.

sfmike 8mo ago

It's the opposite? codex course corrects and is self inquisitive. opus is just wrong and need to refeed it it's wrong.

rippeltippel 8mo ago

Grabbing popcorn...

aulin 8mo ago

Admit I didn't follow the announcements but isn't that a matter of UI? Doesn't seem something that should be baked in the model but in the tooling around it and the instructions you give them. E.g. I've been playing with with GitHub copilot CLI (that despite the bad fame is absolutely amazing) and the same model completely changes its behavior with the prompt. You can have it answer a question promptly or send it on a multi-hour multi-agent exploration writing detailed specs with a single prompt. Or you can have it stop midway for clarification. It all depends on the instructions. Also this is particularly interesting with GitHub billing model as each prompt counts 1 request no matter how many tokens it burns.

F7F7F7 8mo ago
It depends honestly. Both are prone to doing the exact opposite of what you asked. Especially with poor context management. I’ve had both $200 plans and now just have Max x20 and use the $20 ChatGPT plan for an inferior Codex. My experience (up until today) has always been that Codex acts like that one Sr Engineer that we all know. They are kind of a dick. And will disappear into a dark hole and emerge with a circle when you asked for a pentagon. Then let you know why edges are bad for you. And yes, Anthropic is pivoting hard into everything agentic. I bet it’s not too long before Claude Code stops differentiating models. I had Opus blow 750k tokens on a single small task.

mdale 7mo ago

I think it's just both companies building/ marketing to the strength of their competitor. As general perception has been the opposite for codex and Opus respectfully.

mi_lk 7mo ago

It’s the opposite way