18 ms·

GPT-5.5

• MagicMoonlight 5mo ago
  Two hundred pages of shilling and it’s a 1% improvement in the benchmarks. They’re dead in the water. Imagine spending 100m on some of these AI “geniuses” and this is the best they can do.
• Pooge 5mo ago
  Up until now I only paid LLM subscriptions to Anthropic but I'm going to give ChatGPT a chance when my current subscription runs out next month.
• mirs4343 5mo ago
  [flagged]
• debba 5mo ago
  Cannot see it in Codex CLI
  • boring-human 5mo ago
    Did you upgrade the tool binaries? I also couldn't see it until after the upgrade.
• luqtas 5mo ago
  they are using ethical training weights this time!!! /j
• meetpateltech 5mo ago
  GPT-5.5 System Card: https://deploymentsafety.openai.com/gpt-5-5 https://deploymentsafety.openai.com/gpt-5-5
• applfanboysbgon 5mo ago
  If there's a bingo card for model releases, "our [superlative] and [superlative] model yet" is surely the free space.
  • tom1337 5mo ago
    Do "our [superlative] and [superlative] [product] yet" and you have pretty much every product launch
    • SequoiaHope 5mo ago
      I love when Apple says they’re releasing their best iPhone yet so I know the new model is better than the old ones.
      • taspeotis 5mo ago
        https://theonion.com/new-device-desirable-old-device-undesirable-1819571196/ https://theonion.com/new-device-desirable-old-device-undesir...
      • sigmoid10 5mo ago
        That's at least genuine to some degree. Like, ok, good to know it's not officially a step back... But stuff like "smallest notch ever in an iPhone" is outright misleading consumers when there are other brands out there that easily beat them.
        • SequoiaHope 5mo ago
          It’s genuine but hilarious to consider the alternative where a new iPhone is not quite as good as the old model and apple states as much.
  • xnx 5mo ago
    "our newest and most expensive model yet"
    • deleted 5mo ago
      [deleted]
  • ertgbnm 5mo ago
    can't wait for "our worst and dumbest model yet"
• ZeroCool2u 5mo ago
  Benchmarks are favorable enough they're comparing to non-OpenAI models again. Interesting that tokens/second is similar to 5.4. Maybe there's some genuine innovation beyond bigger model better this time?
  • qsort 5mo ago
    It's behind Opus 4.7 in SWE-Bench Pro, if you care about that kind of thing. It seems on-trend, even though benchmarks are less and less meaningful for the stuff we expect from models now. Will be interesting to try.
• minimaxir 5mo ago
  The more interesting part of the announcement than "it's better at benchmarks": > To better utilize GPUs, Codex analyzed weeks’ worth of production traffic patterns and wrote custom heuristic algorithms to optimally partition and balance work. The effort had an outsized impact, increasing token generation speeds by over 20%. The ability for agentic LLMs to improve computational efficiency/speed is a highly impactful domain I wish was more tested than with benchmarks. From my experience Opus is still much better than GPT/Codex in this aspect, but given that OpenAI is getting material gains out of this type of performancemaxxing and they have an increasing incentive to continue doing so given cost/capacity issues, I wonder if OpenAI will continue optimizing for it.
  • amrrs 5mo ago
    Honestly the problem with these is how empirical it is, how someone can reproduce this? I love when Labs go beyond traditional benchies like MMLU and friends but these kind of statements don't help much either - unless it's a proper controlled study!
    • minimaxir 5mo ago
      In a sense it's better than a benchmark: it's a practical, real-world, highly quantifiable improvement assuming there are no quality regressions and passes all test cases. I have been experimenting with this workflow across a variety of computational domains and have achieved consistent results with both Opus and GPT. My coworkers have independently used Opus for optimization suggestions on services in prod and they've led to much better performance (3x in some cases). A more empirical test would be good for everyone (i.e. on equal hardware, give each agent the goal to implement an algorithm and make it as fast as possible, then quantify relative speed improvements that pass all test cases).
      • squibonpig 5mo ago
        Yeah but like what if they're sorta embellishing it or just lying? That's the issue with not being reproducible.
    • 5mo ago
• ativzzz 5mo ago
  I like that they waited for opus 4.7 to come out first so they had a few days to find the benchmarks that gpt 5.5 is better at
  • eknkc 5mo ago
    Well anectodally, 5.4 was already better than opus 4.7 so it should not have been hard.
  • wahnfrieden 5mo ago
    I like that Anthropic rushed 4.7 out to get a couple days of coverage before 5.5 hit
    • spprashant 5mo ago
      Everything since that launch to this release has been a PR disaster for Anthropic.
      • dandaka 5mo ago
        I can argue that disaster started mid-4.6, when they started juggling with rate limits while hitting uptime problems. Great we have some healthy competition and waiting for the next move from Deepmind.
        • gck1 5mo ago
          Correct. Anthropic has been on disaster train since January and they can't seem to get off that train.
• nullbyte 5mo ago
  82.7% on Terminal Bench is crazy
  • toephu2 5mo ago
    Is it? There are 5 other models near ~80% and it was achieved in March... which in AI-world seems like a century ago. https://www.tbench.ai/leaderboard/terminal-bench/2.0 https://www.tbench.ai/leaderboard/terminal-bench/2.0
    • ejpir 5mo ago
      those are not verified. I've tried forgecode and I cannot believe they didn't do something to influence the benchmarks
      • GodelNumbering 5mo ago
        Yup, they were found to be sneaking the answer key using agents.md https://debugml.github.io/cheating-agents/#sneaking-the-answer-key-forgecode-on-terminal-bench-2 https://debugml.github.io/cheating-agents/#sneaking-the-answ...
• jdw64 5mo ago
  GPT is really great, but I wish the GPT desktop app supported MCP as well. You can kind of use connectors like MCP, but having to use ngrok every time just to expose a local filesystem for file editing is more cumbersome than expected.
  • throwaway911282 5mo ago
    Use codex app
• astlouis44 5mo ago
  A playable 3D dungeon arena prototype built with Codex and GPT models. Codex handled the game architecture, TypeScript/Three.js implementation, combat systems, enemy encounters, HUD feedback, and GPT‑generated environment textures. Character models, character textures, and animations were created with third-party asset-generation tools The game that this prompt generated looks pretty decent visually. A big part of this likely due to the fact the meshes were created using a seperate tool (probably meshy, tripo.ai, or similiar) and not generated by 5.5 itself. It really seems like we could be at the dawn of a new era similiar to flash, where any gamer or hobbyist can generate game concepts quickly and instantly publish them to the web. Three.js in particular is really picking up as the primary way to design games with AI, in spite of the fact it's not even a game engine, just a web rendering library.
  • gregpred 5mo ago
    [flagged]
  • ZeWaka 5mo ago
    I personally don't think the gameplay itself is that impressive.
  • 0x62 5mo ago
    FWIW I've been experimenting with Three.js and AI for the last ~3 years, and noticed a significant improvement in 5.4 - the biggest single generation leap for Three.js specifically. It was most evident in shaders (GLSL), but also apparent in structuring of Three.js scenes across multiple pages/components. It still struggles to create shaders from scratch, but is now pretty adequate at editing existing shaders. In 5.2 and below, GPT really struggled with "one canvas, multiple page" experiences, where a single background canvas is kept rendered over routes. In 5.4, it still takes a bit of hand-holding and frequent refactor/optimisation prompts, but is a lot more capable. Excited to test 5.5 and see how it is in practice.
    • CSMastermind 5mo ago
      > It still struggles to create shaders from scratch Oh just like a real developer
• objektif 5mo ago
  Are there faster mini/nano versions as well?
  • tedsanders 5mo ago
    Not this time, no.
  • abi 5mo ago
    Usually, those get released a few weeks later.
• jryio 5mo ago
  Their 'Preparedness Framework'[1] is 20 pages and looks ChatGPT generated, I don't feel prepared reading it. https://cdn.openai.com/pdf/18a02b5d-6b67-4cec-ab64-68cdfbddebcd/preparedness-framework-v2.pdf https://cdn.openai.com/pdf/18a02b5d-6b67-4cec-ab64-68cdfbdde...
• cmrdporcupine 5mo ago
  Not rolled out to my Codex CLI yet, but some users on Reddit claiming it's on theirs.
• cynicalpeace 5mo ago
  It's possible that "smarter" AI won't lead to more productivity in the economy. Why? Because software and "information technology" generally didn't increase productivity over the past 30 years. This has been long known as Solow's productivity paradox. There's lots of theories as to why this is observed, one of them being "mismeasurement" of productivity data. But my favorite theory is that information technology is mostly entertainment, and rather than making you more productive, it distracts you and makes you more lazy. AI's main application has been information space so far. If that continues, I doubt you will get more productivity from it. If you give AI a body... well, maybe that changes.
  • aiaiai177 5mo ago
    Downvoted by the AI Nazis. They are running a tight ship before the IPOs.
    • cbg0 5mo ago
      I downvoted it because it doesn't add anything useful to the conversation, and I don't own any AI stock.
      • cynicalpeace 5mo ago
        It's a hypothesis that "smarter" AI models, ie GPT-5.5, may not be a great boon to productivity. Given that this is the raison d'etre of AI models, and improving them, I don't see why it is any less useful than any other discussion.
  • aerhardt 5mo ago
    > "information technology" generally didn't increase productivity Do you think it'd be viable to run most businesses on pen and paper? I'll give you email and being able to consume informational websites - rest is pen and paper.
    • cynicalpeace 5mo ago
      Productivity metrics were better when businesses were run on just pen and paper. Of course, there could be many confounding factors, but there are also many reasons why this could be so. Just a few hypotheses: - Pen and paper become a limiting factor on bureaucratic BS - Pen and paper are less distracting - Pen and paper require more creative output from the user, as opposed to screens which are mostly consumptive etc etc
• tedsanders 5mo ago
  Just as a heads up, even though GPT-5.5 is releasing today, the rollout in ChatGPT and Codex will be gradual over many hours so that we can make sure service remains stable for everyone (same as our previous launches). You may not see it right away, and if you don't, try again later in the day. We usually start with Pro/Enterprise accounts and then work our way down to Plus. We know it's slightly annoying to have to wait a random amount of time, but we do it this way to keep service maximally stable. (I work at OpenAI.)
  • pixel_popping 5mo ago
    can't wait! Thanks guys. PS: when you drop a new model, it would be smart to reset weekly or at least session limits :)
    • cmrdporcupine 5mo ago
      Limits were just reset two days ago.
      • wahnfrieden 5mo ago
        And yet there was an outage last night
        • lawgimenez 5mo ago
          And they're having an outage right now.
    • pietz 5mo ago
      OpenAI has been very generous with limit resets. Please don't turn this into a weird expectation to happen whenever something unrelated happens. It would piss me off if I were in their place and I really don't want them to stop.
      • cactusplant7374 5mo ago
• YmiYugy 5mo ago
  So according to the benchmarks somewhere in between Opus 4.7 and Mythos
  • jorl17 5mo ago
    GPT 5.4 is already better than Opus 4.7 to me. But, then again, Opus 4.7 is a massive disappointment. I hope they don't discontinue 4.6.
    • steinvakt2 5mo ago
      I’ve had great experience using opus 4.7 in cursor. Works for everything including iOS frontend
      • jorl17 5mo ago
        Cursor is what I daily-drive. 4.7 has been terrible for my mostly python-driven work (whereas Opus 4.6 was literally revolutionary to me). Our frontend folks are also complaining. I left a comment here with this sentiment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47879896 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47879896
    • benjiro3000 5mo ago
      [dead]
    • robwwilliams 5mo ago
      Depends in goals. For long free-firm discussions I find Opus 4.7 Adaptive better/deeper than Opus 4.6 Extended. But usual caveats apply: first week of use and token budget seems generous now on Max 5X.
      • coffeemug 5mo ago
        I had the opposite experience. Opus 4.6 extended feels like the first genuinely intelligent model to converse with, Opus 4.7 adaptive feels like slightly smarter LinkedIn slop.
• impulser_ 5mo ago
  What is the reason behind OpenAI being able to release new models very fast? Since Feb when we got Gemini 3.1, Opus 4.6, and GPT-5.3-Codex we have seen GPT-5.4 and GPT-5.5 but only Opus 4.7 and no new Gemini model. Both of these are pretty decent improvements.
  • minimaxir 5mo ago
    Competition.
    • pixel_popping 5mo ago
      This is frankly exciting, outside of the politics of it all, it always feel great to wake up and a new model being released, I personally will stay awake quite long tonight if GPT-5.5 drop in codex.
      • apical_dendrite 5mo ago
        I don't find it exciting at all. I just feel anxiety about my career and my place in the world. I have a set of skills that I've developed over many years. I care about what I create. I consider it a craft. When I use my skills to solve a hard problem, I feel good about myself. When the AI does the work for me, I don't get that sense of accomplishment. I am seeing my value evaporate before my eyes. I hate this stuff and I wish it had never been invented.
        • pixel_popping 5mo ago
          You might want to rethink this, think of this as the opportunity of a lifetime, the beginning of a new era, the same as the early Internet, where you do have the chance to set yourself for life now, this window is getting shorter and shorter, but you can't deny that you do have the potential NOW to thrive or start multiple businesses without much capital. Think also that the best thing in the end, is probably to build great things, regardless on how we build them, making the world progress.
    • 5mo ago
• baalimago 5mo ago
  Worth the 100% price increase over GPT-5.4?
  • cbg0 5mo ago
    For less than 10% bump across the benchmarks? Probably not, but if your employer is paying (which is probably what OAI is counting on) it's all good. It's kind of starting to make sense that they doubled the usage on Pro plans - if the usage drains twice as fast on 5.5 after that promo is over a lot of people on the $100 plan might have to upgrade.
    • jstummbillig 5mo ago
      You are paying per token, but what you care about is token efficiency. If token efficiency has improved by as much as they claim it did (i.e. you need less tokens to complete a task successfully) all seems well.
      • cbg0 5mo ago
        If it uses half the tokens to complete a task, then doubling the cost is perfectly fine. But is that actually true?
        • 2001zhaozhao 5mo ago
          This happens with every new model release though. The model makes less mistakes and spends less time fixing them, resulting in a token usage reduction for the same difficulty of task. Almost any task other than straight boilerplate will benefit from this. In the same vein, I would guess that Opus 4.7 is probably cheaper for most tasks than 4.6, even though the tokenizer uses more tokens for the same length of string.
          • cbg0 5mo ago
            Doesn't look like it's cheaper, better or uses fewer tokens: https://www.reddit.com/r/Anthropic/comments/1stf6fz/one_week_in_opus_47_vs_46_worse_one_shot_rate/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Anthropic/comments/1stf6fz/one_week... YMMV, I know.
• louiereederson 5mo ago
  For a 56.7 score on the Artificial Intelligence Index, GPT 5.5 used 22m output tokens. For a score of 57, Opus 4.7 used 111m output tokens. The efficiency gap is enormous. Maybe it's the difference between GB200 NVL72 and an Amazon Tranium chip?
  • swyx 5mo ago
    why would chip affect token quantity. this is all models.
    • louiereederson 5mo ago
      Chip costs strongly impact the economics of model serving. It is entirely plausible to me that Opus 4.7 is designed to consume more tokens in order to artificially reduce the API cost/token, thereby obscuring the true operating cost of the model. I agree though, I chose poor phrasing originally. Better to say that GB200 vs Tranium could contribute to the efficiency differential.
      • itemize123 5mo ago
        probably the wrong take - they are arm racing to a better model. it's not enshittification era for models just yet
        • fiatpandas 5mo ago
          Models are still in arms race mode, but harnesses and subscription strategy are tiptoeing into their enshittification era.
  • karmasimida 5mo ago
    Chips doesn’t impact output quality in this magnitude
    • ChrisGreenHeur 5mo ago
      True, but the qualifying the power played a large part. Most likely nuclear power for this high quality token efficiency.
• jumploops 5mo ago
  > GPT‑5.5 improves on GPT‑5.4’s scores while using fewer tokens. This might be great if it translates to agentic engineering and not just benchmarks. It seems some of the gains from Opus 4.6 to 4.7 required more tokens, not less. Maybe more interesting is that they’ve used codex to improve model inference latency. iirc this is a new (expectedly larger) pretrain, so it’s presumably slower to serve.
  • beering 5mo ago
    With Opus it’s hard to tell what was due to the tokenizer changes. Maybe using more tokens for the same prompt means the model effectively thinks more?
  • conradkay 5mo ago
    They say latency is the same as 5.4 and 5.5 is served on GB200 NVL72, so I assume 5.4 was served on hopper.
• BrokenCogs 5mo ago
  I'm here for the pelicans and I'm not leaving until I see one!
  • pixel_popping 5mo ago
    That's a true CTO right there.
  • qingcharles 5mo ago
    I've come to prompt pelicans and chew gum, and I'm all outta gum!
  • tantalor 5mo ago
    simonw pls
  • RomanPushkin 5mo ago
    Ctrl+F: pelican F5
  • bytesandbits 5mo ago
    I know a 10x engineer when i see one.
    • BrokenCogs 5mo ago
      In binary that's just a 10x engineer
      • mrtransient 5mo ago
        It a hex of an engineer (no offence)
    • bl4ckneon 5mo ago
      How can we tell who the 100x engineers are then?
• 2001zhaozhao 5mo ago
  Pricing: $5/1M input, $30/1M output (same input price and 20% more output price than Opus 4.7)
  • sergiotapia 5mo ago
    That pricing is extremely spicy, wow.
    • benjiro3000 5mo ago
      [dead]
  • oh_no 5mo ago
    yes but as far as i know gpt tokenizer is about the same as opus 4.6's, where 4.7 is seeing something in the ballpark of a 30% increase. this should still be cheaper even disregarding the concerns around 4.7 thinking burning tokens
  • tedsanders 5mo ago
    Yep, it's more expensive per token. However, I do want to emphasize that this is per token, not per task. If we look at Opus 4.7, it uses smaller tokens (1-1.35x more than Opus 4.6) and it was also trained to think longer. https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-opus-4-7 https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-opus-4-7 On the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index eval for example, in order to hit a score of 57%, Opus 4.7 takes ~5x as many output tokens as GPT-5.5, which dwarfs the difference in per-token pricing. The token differential varies a lot by task, so it's hard to give a reliable rule of thumb (I'm guessing it's usually going to be well below ~5x), but hope this shows that price per task is not a linear function of price per token, as different models use different token vocabularies and different amounts of tokens. We have raised per-token prices for our last couple models, but we've also made them a lot more efficient for the same capability level. (I work at OpenAI.)
    • 2001zhaozhao 5mo ago
      I don't have anything to add, but I like how you guys are actually sending people to communicate in Hacker News. Brilliant.
• xnx 5mo ago
  Next up: Google I/O on May 19? I have to imagine they'll go to Gemini 3.5 if only for marketing reasons.
• k2xl 5mo ago
  Surprised to see SWE-Bench Pro only a slight improvement (57.7% -> 58.6%) while Opus 4.7 hit 64.3%. I wonder what Anthropic is doing to achieve higher scores on this - and also what makes this test particular hard to do well in compared to Terminal Bench (which 5.5 seemed to have a big jump in)
  • vexna 5mo ago
    There's an asterisk right below that table stating that: > *Anthropic reported signs of memorization on a subset of problems And from the Anthropic's Opus 4.7 release page, it also states: > SWE-bench Verified, Pro, and Multilingual: Our memorization screens flag a subset of problems in these SWE-bench evals. Excluding any problems that show signs of memorization, Opus 4.7’s margin of improvement over Opus 4.6 holds.
  • conradkay 5mo ago
    Was 4.7 distilled off Mythos (which got 77.8%)? Interesting how mythos got 82% on terminal-bench 2.0 compared to 82.7% for GPT-5.5. Also notice how they state just for SWE-Bench Pro: "*Anthropic reported signs of memorization on a subset of problems"
• k2xl 5mo ago
  ARC-AGI 3 is missing on this list - given that the SOTA before 5.5 <1% if I recall, I wonder if this didn't make meaningful progress.
  • redox99 5mo ago
    It's a silly benchmark anyways.
• vessenes 5mo ago
  Yay. 5.4 was a frustrating model - moments of extreme intelligence (I liked it very much for code review) - but also a sort of idiocy/literalism that made it very unsuited for prompting in a vague sense. I also found its openclaw engagement wooden and frustrating. Which didn’t matter until anthropic started charging $150 a day for opus for openclaw. Anyway - these benchmarks look really good; I’m hopeful on the qualitative stuff.
• I_am_tiberius 5mo ago
  I'd really like to see improvements like these: - Some technical proof that data is never read by open ai. - Proof that no logs of my data or derived data is saved. etc...
  • anematode 5mo ago
    I don't think this is technically possible without something like homomorphic encryption, which poses too large of a runtime cost for usage in LLMs
    • I_am_tiberius 5mo ago
      They don't even try to proof it another way.
• thimabi 5mo ago
  Will we also see a GPT-5.5-Codex version of this model? Or will the same version of it be served both in the web app and in Codex?
  • Uehreka 5mo ago
    After 5.1, we haven’t seen a -codex-max model, presumably because the benefits of the special training gpt-5.1-codex-max got to improve long context work filtered into gpt-5.2-codex, making the variant no longer necessary (my personal experience accords with this). I’ve been using gpt-5.4 in Codex since it came out, it’s been great. I’ve never back-to-back tested a version against its -codex variant to figure out what the qualitative difference is (this would take a long time to get a really solid answer), but I wouldn’t be surprised if at some point the general-purpose model no longer needs whatever extra training the -codex model gets and they just stop releasing them. I thought it was weird that for almost the entire 5.3 generation we only had a -codex model, I presume in that case they were seeing the massive AI coding wave this winter and were laser focused on just that for a couple months. Maybe someday someone will actually explain all of this.
• Someone1234 5mo ago
  I'd like to draw people's attention to this section of this page: https://developers.openai.com/codex/pricing?codex-usage-limits=plus#what-are-the-usage-limits-for-my-plan https://developers.openai.com/codex/pricing?codex-usage-limi... Note the Local Messages between 5.3, 5.4, and 5.5. And, yes, I did read the linked article and know they're claiming that 5.5's new efficient should make it break-even with 5.4, but the point stands, tighter limits/higher prices.
  • puppystench 5mo ago
    For API usage, GPT-5.5 is 2x the price of GPT-5.4, ~4x the price of GPT-5.1, and ~10x the price of Kimi-2.6. Unfortunately I think the lesson they took from Anthropic is that devs get really reliant and even addicted on coding agents, and they'll happily pay any amount for even small benefits.
    • oh_no 5mo ago
      what's the source on that?
      • puppystench 5mo ago
        In the announcement webpage: >For API developers, gpt-5.5 will soon be available in the Responses and Chat Completions APIs at $5 per 1M input tokens and $30 per 1M output tokens, with a 1M context window.
        • oh_no 5mo ago
          oops, thanks. i had just been looking at their api docs
    • kingstnap 5mo ago
      I feel like devs generally spend someone else's money on tokens. Either their employers or OpenAIs when they use a codex subscription. If I put on my schizo hat. Something they might be doing is increasing the losses on their monthly codex subscriptions, to show that the API has a higher margin than before (the codex account massively in the negative, but the API account now having huge margins). I've never seen an OpenAI investor pitch deck. But my guess is that API margins is one of the big ones they try to sell people on since Sama talks about it on Twitter. I would be interested in hearing the insider stuff. Like if this model is genuinely like twice as expensive to serve or something.
• sosodev 5mo ago
  I hope the industry starts competing more on highest scores with lowest tokens like this. It's a win for everybody. It means the model is more intelligent, is more efficient to inference, and costs less for the end user. So much bench-maxxing is just giving the model a ton of tokens so it can inefficiently explore the solution space.
  • an0malous 5mo ago
    The premise of the trillion dollars in AI investments is not that it’ll be as good as it currently is but cheaper. It’s AGI or bust at this point.
    • stonecauldron 5mo ago
      Right, but my belief is that the LLM paradigm is a dead end for AGI. We need something different to cross that barrier.
    • sosodev 5mo ago
      Yeah, but don’t you agree that less tokens to accomplish the same goal is a sign of increasing intelligence?
      • energy123 5mo ago
        Less cost to accomplish the same goal is a sign of intelligence. That's not necessarily achieved with less tokens but it may be.
      • mchusma 5mo ago
        Kind of? But I really care about price speed and quality. If it used 10x tokens at 1/10th the tokens and same latency I would be neutral on it. Kimmi 2.6 for example seems to throw more tokens to improve performance (for better or worse)
      • camdenreslink 5mo ago
        It could be. Or just smarter caching (which wouldn't necessarily have to do with model intelligence). Or just overfitting on the 95% most common prompts (which could save tokens but make the models less intelligent/flexible).
• ionwake 5mo ago
  is there anywhere I can try it? ( I just stopped my pro sub ) but was wondering if there is a playground or 3rd party so i can just test it briefly?
• jeremie_strand 5mo ago
  [dead]
• numbers 5mo ago
  I've stopped trusting these "trust me bro" benchmarks and just started going to LM Arena and looking for the actual benchmark comparisons. https://arena.ai/leaderboard/code https://arena.ai/leaderboard/code
  • nba456_ 5mo ago
    This is not any better of a benchmark
  • stri8ted 5mo ago
    I doubt this is representative of real world usage. There is a difference between a few turns on a web chatbot, vs many-turn cli usage on a real project.
• coderssh 5mo ago
  Great modal, I have been using codex and its awesome. Lets see what GPT-5.5 does to it
• losvedir 5mo ago
  > It excels at ... researching online How does this work exactly? Is there like a "search online" tool that the harness is expected to provide? Or does the OpenAI infra do that as part of serving the response? I've been working on building my own agent, just for fun, and I conceptually get using a command line, listing files, reading them, etc, but am sort of stumped how I'm supposed to do the web search piece of it. Given that they're calling out that this model is great at online research - to what extent is that a property of the model itself? I would have thought that was a harness concern.
  • 100ms 5mo ago
    It's literally a distinct model with a different optimisation goal compared to normal chat. There's a ton of public information around how they work and how they're trained
  • wincy 5mo ago
    I’ve noticed when writing little bedtime stories that require specific research (my kids like Pokemon stories and they’ve been having an episodic “pokemon adventure” with them as the protagonists) ChatGPT has done a fantastic job of first researching the moves the pokemon have, then writing the actual story. The only mistake it consistently makes is when I summarize and move from a full context session, it thinks that Gyarados has to swim and is incapable of flying. It definitely seems like it does all the searching first, with a separate model, loads that in, then does the actual writing.
    • ziml77 5mo ago
      Gyarados is a flying type but I think it may be accurate that it can't actually fly. The only flying moves it can learn in any generation are Hurricane and Bounce (Bounce does send the user up into the air for a turn but the implication is that they've trampolined up extremely high rather than used wings to ascend)
      • Melatonic 5mo ago
        If anything it should probably be combined water/dragon type
• faxmeyourcode 5mo ago
  How does it compare to mythos?
• enraged_camel 5mo ago
  Is this the first time OpenAI compared their new release to Anthropic models? Previously they were comparing only to GPT's own previous versions.
• charliecs 5mo ago
  [dead]
• justonepost2 5mo ago
  the attenuation of man nears < 5 years until humans are buffered out of existence tbh may the light of potentia spread forth beyond us
• gallerdude 5mo ago
  If GPT-5.5 Pro really was Spud, and two years of pretraining culminated in one release, WOW, you cannot feel it at all from this announcement. If OpenAI wants to know why they like they’ve fallen behind the vibes of Anthropic, they need to look no further than their marketing department. This makes everything feel like a completely linear upgrade in every way.
  • jimbob45 5mo ago
    Also the naming department. You can tell that this is the AI company Microsoft chose to back because their naming scheme is as bad as .NET's.
    • gallerdude 5mo ago
      I actually have no problem with the 5.x line... but if Pro really was an entirely new pretrain, they did a horrible job conveying that.
  • I_am_tiberius 5mo ago
    Clearly they felt a big backlash when version 5 was released. Now they are afraid of another response like this. And effectively, for the user it will likely only be a small update.
• throwaway2027 5mo ago
  Good timing I had just renewed my subscription.
• throwaw12 5mo ago
  If anyone tried it already, how do you feel? Numbers look too good, wondering if it is benchmaxxed or not
• h14h 5mo ago
  This seems huge for subscription customers. Looking at the Artificial Analysis numbers, 5.5 at medium effort yields roughly the intelligence as 5.4 (xhigh) while using less than a fifth the tokens. As long as tokens count roughly equally towards subscription plan usage between 5.5 & 5.4, you can look at this as effectively a 5x increase in usage limits.
  • gausswho 5mo ago
    As someone who always leaves intelligence at default, and am ok with existing models, should I be shifting gears more manually as providers sell us newer models? Is medium or lower better than free/cheaper models?
    • dcre 5mo ago
      SOTA models on medium are probably still better than free or cheap models, but you should experiment.
• woeirua 5mo ago
  Nice to see them openly compare to Opus-4.7… but they don’t compare it against Mythos which says everything you need to know. The LinkedIn/X influencers who hyped this as a Mythos-class model should be ashamed of themselves, but they’ll be too busy posting slop content about how “GPT-5.5 changes everything”.
  • A_D_E_P_T 5mo ago
    Almost nobody can actually use Mythos, though?
• mondojesus 5mo ago
  I'm still using 5.3 in codex. Are 5.4 and 5.5 better than 5.3 in concrete ways?
  • cbg0 5mo ago
    The benchmarks say so, but try it out with actual tasks and be the judge.
• deleted 5mo ago
  [deleted]
• phillipcarter 5mo ago
  ... sigh. I realize there's little that can be done about this, but I just got through a real-world session determining of Opus 4.7 is meaningfully better than Opus 4.6 or GPT 5.4, and now there's another one to try things with. These benchmark results generally mean little to me in practice. Anyways, still exciting to see more improvements.
• extr 5mo ago
  Seems like a continuation of the current meta where GPT models are better in GPT-like ways and Claude models are better in Claude-like ways, with the differences between each slightly narrowing with each generation. 5.5 is noticeably better to talk to, 4.7 is noticeably more precise. Etc etc.
  • deleted 5mo ago
    [deleted]
• deleted 5mo ago
  [deleted]
• NitpickLawyer 5mo ago
  > Across all three evals, GPT‑5.5 improves on GPT‑5.4’s scores while using fewer tokens. Yeah, this was the next step. Have RLVR make the model good. Next iteration start penalising long + correct and reward short + correct. > CyberGym 81.8% Mythos was self reported at 83.1% ... So not far. Also it seems they're going the same route with verification. We're entering the era where SotA will only be available after KYC, it seems.
  • mattas 5mo ago
    Not good for employees that are being measured by their token usage.
  • cbg0 5mo ago
    Isn't CyberGym an open benchmark so trivial to benchmaxx anyway?
  • toraway 5mo ago
    Isn't Mythos limited to a selected group of companies/organizations Anthropic chose themselves? If the OpenAI announcement for GPT-5.5 is accurate the "trusted cyber access" just requires an open, seemingly straightforward identity verification step. https://openai.com/index/scaling-trusted-access-for-cyber-defense/ https://openai.com/index/scaling-trusted-access-for-cyber-de... > We are expanding access to accelerate cyber defense at every level. We are making our cyber-permissive models available through Trusted Access for Cyber , starting with Codex, which includes expanded access to the advanced cybersecurity capabilities of GPT‑5.5 with fewer restrictions for verified users meeting certain trust signals (opens in a new window) at launch. > Broad access is made possible through our investments in model safety, authenticated usage, and monitoring for impermissible use. We have been working with external experts for months to develop, test and iterate on the robustness of these safeguards. With GPT‑5.5, we are ensuring developers can secure their code with ease, while putting stronger controls around the cyber workflows most likely to cause harm by malicious actors. > Organizations who are responsible for defending critical infrastructure can apply to access cyber-permissive models like GPT‑5.4‑Cyber, while meeting strict security requirements to use these models for securing their internal systems. "GPT‑5.4‑Cyber" is something else and apparently needs some kind of special access, but that CyberGym benchmark result seems to apply to the more or less open GPT-5.5 model that was just released.
• jfkimmes 5mo ago
  Everyone talked about the marketing stunt that was Anthropic's gated Mythos model with an 83% result on CyberGym. OpenAI just dropped GPT 5.5, which scores 82% and is open for anybody to use. I recommend anybody in offensive/defensive cybersecurity to experiment with this. This is the real data point we needed - without the hype! Never thought I'd say this but OpenAI is the 'open' option again.
  • tnkuehne 5mo ago
    isnt it like cyber question are being routed to dumper models at openai?
    • jfkimmes 5mo ago
      Do you have a source for that? Neither the release post, nor the model card seems to indicate anything like this?
      • nikanj 5mo ago
        Anything that even vaguely smells like security research, reverse engineering or similar "dual-use" application hits the guardrails hard and fast. "Hey codex, here is our codebase, help us find exploitable issues" gives a "I can't help you with that, but I'm happy to give you a vague lecture on memory safety or craft a valgrind test harness"
      • tech234a 5mo ago
        I see it here https://developers.openai.com/codex/concepts/cyber-safety https://developers.openai.com/codex/concepts/cyber-safety
  • tpurves 5mo ago
    The real 'hype' was that the oh-snap realization that Open AI would absolutely release a competitive model to Mythos within weeks of Anthropic announcing there's, and that Sam would not gate access to it. So the panic was that the cyber world had only a projected 2 weeks to harden all these new zero days before Sam would inevitably create open season for blackhats to discover and exploit a deluge of zero-days.
• tantalor 5mo ago
  > A playable 3D dungeon arena Where's the demo link?
• vardump 5mo ago
  I just can't bear to use services from this company after what they did to the global DRAM markets. I'm not trying to make any kind of moral statement, but the company just feels toxic to me.
• vthallam 5mo ago
  This model is great at long horizon tasks, and Codex now has heartbeats, so it can keep checking on things. Give it your hardest problem that would take hours with verifiable constraints, you will see how good this is:) *I work at OAI.
  • dandaka 5mo ago
    Could be a great feature, can't wait to test! Tired of other models (looking at you Opus) constantly stuck mid-task lately.
    • winrid 5mo ago
      Interesting, I just had opus convert a 35k loc java game to c++ overnight (root agent that orchestrated and delegated to sub agents) and woke up and it's done and works. What plan are you on? I'm starting to wonder if they're dynamically adjusting reasoning based on plan or something.
      • gck1 5mo ago
        I'm on max 5x and noticed this too. I don't use built-in subagents but rather full Claude session that orchestrates other full claude sessions. Worker agents that receive tasks now stop midway, they ask for permission to continue. My "heartbeat" is basically "status. One line" message sent to the orchestrator. Opus 4.6 worker agents never asked for permission to continue, and when heartbeat was sent to orchestrator, it just knew what to do (checked on subagents etc). Now it just says that it waits for me to confirm something.
        • winrid 5mo ago
          Weird. I don't have this behavior, although I did with codex and 5.4 haha. I bet the providers are playing with settings underneath and different users are routed to different deployments, or they're secretly routing us to different models under load.
      • adamandsteve 5mo ago
• deleted 5mo ago
  [deleted]
• nickandbro 5mo ago
  Very impressive! Interesting how all other benchmarks it seems to surpass Opus 4.7 except SWE-Bench Pro (Public). You would think that doing so well at Cyber, it would naturally possess more abilities there. Wonder what makes up the actual difference there
• mudkipdev 5mo ago
  This is 3x the price of GPT-5.1, released just 6 months ago. Is no one else alarmed by the trend? What happens when the cheaper models are deprecated/removed over time?
  • dandaka 5mo ago
    SOTA models get distilled to open source weights in ~6 months. So paying premium for bleeding edge performance sounds like a fair compensation for enormous capex.
  • operatingthetan 5mo ago
    We know they cost much more than this for OpenAI. Assume prices will continue to climb until they are making money.
    • beering 5mo ago
      source? There have also been a bunch of people here saying the opposite
    • horiap 5mo ago
      How do we know that? There is a large gap between API pricing for SOTA models and similarly sized OSS models hosted by 3rd party providers. Sure, they’re distilled and should be cheaper to run but at the same time, these hosting providers do turn a margin on these given it’s their core business, unless they do it out of the kindness of their heart. So it’s hard for me to imagine these providers are losing money on API pricing.
  • energy123 5mo ago
    Look a cost per intelligence or cost per task instead of cost per token.
    • ulimn 5mo ago
      Isn't the outcome / solution for a given task non-deterministic? So can we reliably measure that?
• aliljet 5mo ago
  I've found myself so deeply embedded in the Claude Max subscription that I'm worried about potentially makign a switch. How are people making sure they stay nimble enough not to get trarpped by one company's ecosystem over another? For what it's worth, Opus 4.7 has not been a step up and it's come with an enormously higher usage of the subscription Anthropic offers making the entire offering double worse.
  • type4 5mo ago
    I have a directory of skills that I symlink to Codex/Claude/pi. I make scripts that correspond with them to do any heavy lifting, I avoid platform specific features like Claude's hooks. I also symlink/share a user AGENTS.md/CLAUDE.md MCPs aren't as smooth, but I just set them up in each environment.
  • dogline 5mo ago
    Except for history, I don’t find much that stops you from switching back and forth on the CLI. They both use tools, each has a different voice, but they both work. Have it summarize your existing history into a markdown file, and read it in with any engine. The APIs are pretty interchangeable too. Just ask to convert from one to the other if you need to.
  • cube2222 5mo ago
    Small tip, at least for now you can switch back to Opus 4.6, both in the ui and in Claude Code.
  • chis 5mo ago
    It's surprisingly simple to switch. I mean both products offer basically identical coding CLI experiences. Personally I've been paying for Claude max $100, and ChatGPT $20, and then just using ChatGPT to fill in the gaps. Specifically I like it for code review and when Claude is down.
    • dannyw 5mo ago
      Try GPT-5.5 as your daily driver for a bit. It felt a lot smarter, reliable, and I was much more productive with it.
• benjx88 5mo ago
  Good job on the release notice. I appreciate that it isn't just marketing fluff, but actually includes the technical specs for those of us who care and not concentrated in coding agents only. I hope GPT 5.5 Pro is not cutting corners and neuter from the start, you got the compute for it not to be.
• GenerWork 5mo ago
  Looking at the space/game/earthquake tracker examples makes me hopeful that OpenAI is going to focus a bit more on interface visual development/integration from tools like Figma. This is one area where Anthropic definitely reigns supreme.
• 6thbit 5mo ago
  Mythos 5.5 SWE-bench Pro 77.8%* 58.6% Terminal-bench-2.0 82.0% 82.7%* GPQA Diamond 94.6%* 93.6% H. Last Exam 56.8%* 41.4% H. Last Exam (tools) 64.7%* 52.2% BrowseComp 86.9% 84.4% (90.1% Pro)* OSWorld-Verified 79.6%* 78.7% Still far from Mythos on SWE-bench but quite comparable otherwise. Source for mythos values: https://www.anthropic.com/glasswing https://www.anthropic.com/glasswing
  • aliljet 5mo ago
    Mythos is only real when it's actually available. If you're using Opus 4.7 right now, you know how incredibly nerfed the Opus autonomy is in service of perceived safety. I'm not so confident this will be as great as Anthropic wants us to believe..
  • XCSme 5mo ago
    They mentioned in their release page, that the Claude team noticed memorization of the SWE-bench test, so the test is actually in the training data. Here: https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-opus-4-7#:~:text=memorization https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-opus-4-7#:~:text=memor...
    • William_BB 5mo ago
      Good luck arguing with SWE benchmark purists
    • sigmoid10 5mo ago
      Any static benchmark older than 12-18 months is basically worthless, because the content will have spread all over the internet and have found its way into the latest model's training set.
  • alansaber 5mo ago
    A single benchmark is meaningless, you always get quirky results on some benchmarks.
  • kaonashi-tyc-01 5mo ago
• varispeed 5mo ago
  I am sceptical. The generation after 4o models have become crappier and crappier. Hope this one changes the trend. 5.4 is unusable for complex coding work.
• yuvrajmalgat 5mo ago
  finally
• senko 5mo ago
  I might just be following too many AI-related people on X, but omg the media blitz around 5.5 is aggressive. Soo many unconvincing "I've had access for three weeks and omg it's amazing" takes, it actually primes me for it to be a "meh". I prefer to see for myself, but the gradual rollout, combined with full-on marketing campaign, is annoying.
  • user34283 5mo ago
    I used it last night for iOS app development and it felt like a noticeable improvement. With the Pro plan it was available in both Codex and ChatGPT already when I first checked, which was within an hour of the release.
• CompleteSkeptic 5mo ago
  Is this the first time OpenAI has published comparisons to other labs? Seems so to me - see GPT-5.4[1] and 5.2[2] announcements. Might be an tacit admission of being behind. [1] https://openai.com/index/introducing-gpt-5-4/ https://openai.com/index/introducing-gpt-5-4/ [2] https://openai.com/index/introducing-gpt-5-2/ https://openai.com/index/introducing-gpt-5-2/
  • oliver236 5mo ago
    beautiful!!
• simonw 5mo ago
  This doesn't have API access yet, but OpenAI seem to approve of the Codex API backdoor used by OpenClaw these days... https://twitter.com/steipete/status/2046775849769148838 https://twitter.com/steipete/status/2046775849769148838 and https://twitter.com/romainhuet/status/2038699202834841962 https://twitter.com/romainhuet/status/2038699202834841962 And that backdoor API has GPT-5.5. So here's a pelican: https://simonwillison.net/2026/Apr/23/gpt-5-5/#and-some-pelicans https://simonwillison.net/2026/Apr/23/gpt-5-5/#and-some-peli... I used this new plugin for LLM: https://github.com/simonw/llm-openai-via-codex https://github.com/simonw/llm-openai-via-codex UPDATE: I got a much better pelican by setting the reasoning effort to xhigh: https://gist.github.com/simonw/a6168e4165a258e4d664aeae8e602cc5?permalink_comment_id=6115759#gistcomment-6115759 https://gist.github.com/simonw/a6168e4165a258e4d664aeae8e602...
  • singingtoday 5mo ago
    Thank you for continuing to post these! Very interesting benchmark.
  • DrProtic 5mo ago
    That pelican you posted yesterday from a local model looks nicer than this one. Edit: this one has crossed legs lol
    • BeetleB 5mo ago
      It really needs to pee.
  • droidjj 5mo ago
    It's... like no pelican I've ever seen before.
    • hagbard_c 5mo ago
      You've never seen pelicans riding bicycles either so maybe these are just representations of those specific subgroups of pelicans which are capable of riding them. Normal pelicans would not feel the need to ride bikes since they can fly, these special pelicans mostly seem to lack the equipment needed to do that which might be part of the reason they evolved to ride two-wheeled pedal-propelled vehicles.
• yuvrajmalgat 5mo ago
  [dead]
• XCSme 5mo ago
  2x the price for 1-5% performance gain
• deleted 5mo ago
  [deleted]
• elAhmo 5mo ago
  Is Codex receiving 5.4 or 5.5 release? I am still using Codex 5.3 and haven't switched to GPT 5.4 as I don't like the 'its automatic bro trust us', so wondering is Codex going to get these specific releases at all in the future.
• nickvec 5mo ago
  I'm conflicted whether I should keep my Claude Max 5x subscription at this point and switch back to GPT/Codex... anyone else in a similar position? I'd rather not be paying for two AI providers and context switching between the two, though I'm having a hard time gauging if Claude Code is still the "cream of the crop" for SWE work. I haven't played around with Codex much.
  • the_sleaze_ 5mo ago
    I have experienced 0 friction swapping between the 2 models, in fact pitting them against eachother has resulted in the highest success rate for me so far.
    • nickvec 5mo ago
      Interesting. I may have to give that a shot, thanks.
  • deleted 5mo ago
    [deleted]
  • scottyah 5mo ago
    Every time I've followed the hype and tried OpenAI models I've found them lacking for the most part. It might just be that I prefer the peer-programming vs spec-ing out the task and handing it off, but I've never been as productive as I am with Claude. Also, I'm still caught up on the DoD ethics stuff.
  • mpaepper 5mo ago
    I switched from CC to Codex a few days ago. I get limited much less and the code quality is similar, so not looking back
    • gck1 5mo ago
      Which plan? And how are the weekly limits on that plan compared to CCs equivalent subscription? I don't really care about 5h limits, I can queue up work and just get agents to auto continue, but weekly ones are anxiety inducing.
• cscheid 5mo ago
  I know this is irrelevant on the grand scheme of things, but that WebGL animation is really quite wrong. That is extra funny given the "ensure it has realistic orbital mechanics." phrase in the prompt. I prescribe 20 hours of KSP to everyone involved, that'll set them right.
• bradley13 5mo ago
  "our strongest set of safeguards to date" How much capability is lost, by hobbling models with a zillion protections against idiots? Every prompt gets evaluated, to ensure you are not a hacker, you are not suicidal, you are not a racist, you are not... Maybe just...leave that all off? I know, I know, individual responsibility no longer exists, but I can dream.
  • iugtmkbdfil834 5mo ago
    This is my personal pet peeve as well. Like, I accept maybe everything shouldn't be offered to everyone, but maybe just gate keep it behind credit card( but I know that is a market penetration no no ). I feel like such a waste of power ( electrical and the potential we might be missing out on ).
• AbuAssar 5mo ago
  This is the first time openAi include competing models in their benchmarks, always included only openAi models.
• egorfine 5mo ago
  > We are releasing GPT‑5.5 with our strongest set of safeguards to date ... > we’re deploying stricter classifiers for potential cyber risk which some users may find annoying initially So we should be expecting to not be able to check our own code for vulnerabilities, because inherently the model cannot know whether I'm feeding my code or someone else's.
  • dannyw 5mo ago
    Hopefully not, because checking your codebase for vulnerabilities is really valuable. I hope it’s just limits on pentesting and stuff, and not for code analysis and review.
    • lucb1e 5mo ago
      But how do it know?
• cchrist 5mo ago
  Which is better GPT-5.5 or Opus 4.7? And for what tasks?
• Rapzid 5mo ago
  In Copilot where it's easy to switch models Opus 4.6 was still providing, IMHO, better stock results than GPT-5.4. Particularly in areas outside straight coding tasks. So analysis, planning, etc. Better and more thorough output. Better use of formatting options(tables, diagrams, etc). I'm hoping to see improvements in this area with 5.5.
• ace2pace 5mo ago
  I hear its as good as Opus 4.7. The battle has just begun
  • swrrt 5mo ago
    I heard someone said it is better than Opus 4.7. Recently, a lot of my friends complain about Opus 4.7 and previous models performance degradation.
• silvertaza 5mo ago
  Still huge hallucination rate, unfortunately at 86%. To compare, Opus sits at 36%. Source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models?omniscience=omniscience-hallucination-rate#aa-omniscience-hallucination-rate https://artificialanalysis.ai/models?omniscience=omniscience...
  • simianwords 5mo ago
    There's something off with this because Haiku should not be that good.
    • jwpapi 5mo ago
      The hallucination benchmark is hallucinating
    • rattray 5mo ago
      I've been very curious about that too. I wonder if it's actually much better at admitting when it doesn't know something, because it thinks it's a "dumber model". But I haven't played with this at all myself.
    • camgunz 5mo ago
      Hallucination benchmarks accept "I don't know", which Haiku did at least a little. Here are other benchmarks corroborating: https://suprmind.ai/hub/ai-hallucination-rates-and-benchmarks/ https://suprmind.ai/hub/ai-hallucination-rates-and-benchmark...
  • dakolli 5mo ago
    This indicates they want this behavior, they know the person asking the question probably doesn't understand the problem entirely (or why would they be asking), so they'd prefer a confident response, regardless of outcomes, because the point is to sell the technologies competency (and the perception thereof), not the capabilities, to a bunch of people that have no clue what they're talking about. LLMs will ruin your product, have fun trusting a billionaires thinking machine they swear is capable of replacing your employees if you just pay them 75% of your labor budget.
• jawiggins 5mo ago
  What is the major and minor semver meaning for these models? Is each minor release a new fine-tuning with a new subset of example data while the major releases are made from scratch? Or do they even mean anything at this point?
  • gck1 5mo ago
    Nothing. The next major increment is going to happen when marketing department is confident they can sell it as a major improvement without everyone laughing at them. Which at this point seems like never. I think Anthropic fearmongering and "leaks" of Mythos was them testing the ground for 5.x, which seems to have backfired.
• pants2 5mo ago
  Labs still aren't publishing ARC-AGI-3 scores, even though it's been out for some time. Is it because the numbers are too embarrassing?
  • stonecauldron 5mo ago
    Because they want to keep the narrative that they'll achieve AGI with LLMs alive.
  • kilroy123 5mo ago
    To be fair, there's not much to report. Isn't it pretty much at 0?
    • pants2 5mo ago
      Opus-4.6 with 0.5% currently leads GPT-5.4 with 0.2%[1]. Seems meaningful even if the absolute numbers are very low. That's sort of the excitement of it. 2. https://arcprize.org/leaderboard https://arcprize.org/leaderboard
  • AG25 5mo ago
    GPT-5.5 was just released and OpenAI didnt mention ARC AGI 3 at all, their score probably sucks.
  • tedsanders 5mo ago
    Honest answer is that it isn't done running yet. It takes some human bandwidth and time to run, so results weren't ready by this morning. We don't know what the score will be, but will probably go up on the leaderboard sometime soon. I personally don't put a lot of stock in the ARC-AGI evals, as it's not relevant to most work that people do, but should still be interesting to see as a measure of reasoning ability. (I work at OpenAI.)
• zerotosixty 5mo ago
  Those who are using gpt5.5 how does it compare to Opus 4.6 / 4.7 in terms of code generation?
• kburman 5mo ago
  What a time. I am back here genuinely wishing for OpenAI to release a great model, because without stiff competition, it feels like Anthropic has completely lost its mind.
  • victor9000 5mo ago
    Care to elaborate? I jumped ship when 5.4 first released, have things gotten worse?
• M4R5H4LL 5mo ago
  I am a heavy Claude Code user. I just tried using Codex with 5.4 (as a Plus user I don't have access to 5.5 yet), and it was quite underwhelming. The app stopped regularly much earlier than what I wanted. It also claimed to have fixed issues when it did not; this is not a hallmark of GPT, and Opus has similar issues, but Claude will not make the same mistake three times in a row. It is unusable at the moment, while Claude allows me do get real work done on a daily basis. Until then...
  • bhu8 5mo ago
    Gpt-5.3-codex is miles better than 5.4 in that regard. It’s better at orchestration, and does the things that it said it did. Haven’t tested 5.5 yet but using 5.4 for exploration + brainstorming and handing over the findings to 5.3-codex works pretty well
• _alternator_ 5mo ago
  > One engineer at NVIDIA who had early access to the model went as far as to say: "Losing access to GPT‑5.5 feels like I've had a limb amputated.” This quote is more sinister than I think was intended; it likely applies to all frontier coding models. As they get better, we quickly come to rely on them for coding. It's like playing a game on God Mode. Engineers become dependent; it's truly addictive. This matches my own experience and unease with these tools. I don't really have the patience to write code anymore because I can one shot it with frontier models 10x faster. My role has shifted, and while it's awesome to get so much working so quickly, the fact is, when the tokens run out, I'm basically done working. It's literally higher leverage for me to go for a walk if Claude goes down than to write code because if I come back refreshed and Claude is working an hour later then I'll make more progress than mentally wearing myself out reading a bunch of LLM generated code trying to figure out how to solve the problem manually. Anyway, it continues to make me uneasy, is all I'm saying.
  • Mauneam 5mo ago
    You are that guy in early 1900s who would rather ride a horse than get in a car because cars "continued to make him uneasy."
  • alansaber 5mo ago
    That's the path we've been going down for a few years now. The current hedge is that frontier labs are actively competing to win users. The backup hedge is that open source LLMs can provide cheap compute. There will always be economical access to LLMs, but the provider with the best models will be able to charge basically whatever they want and still have buyers.
    • trvz 5mo ago
      Open source LLMs aren’t about cost foremost, but stability.
      • deleted 5mo ago
        [deleted]
• baxuz 5mo ago
  Ah yes, the next "trust me bro"
• thinkindie 5mo ago
  This is reminding me when Chrome and Firefox where racing to release a new “major version” (at least from the semver POV) without adding significantly new functionality at a time that browsers were already becoming a commodity. As much as we don’t care anymore for a new chrome or Firefox version so will be the release of a new model version.
  • jstummbillig 5mo ago
    The only difference being that we still do care, very much. The models can still get a lot better before we stop caring.
• ant6n 5mo ago
  My impression has been that ChatGPT-5.4 has been getting dumber and more exhausting in the last couple of weeks. Like it makes a lot of obvious mistakes, ignores (parts of) prompts. keeps forgetting important facts or requirement. Maybe this is a crazy theory, but I sometimes feel like they gimp their existing models before a big release to you'll notice more of a "step".
  • atmanactive 5mo ago
    Definitely feels like it.
• lukebechtel 5mo ago
  [dead]
• wiseowise 5mo ago
  [flagged]
• i_love_retros 5mo ago
  Oh shiiiiit boy! An incrementation dropped!!
• wslh 5mo ago
  Related and insightful: "GPT-5.5: Mythos-Like Hacking, Open to All" [1]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47879330 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47879330
• jedisct1 5mo ago
  GPT-5.4 is already an incredible model for code reviews and security audits with the swival.dev /audit command. The fact that GPT-5.5 is apparently even better at long-running tasks is very exciting. I don’t have access to it yet, but I’m really looking forward to trying it.
• 1515874411 5mo ago
  [dead]
• blixt 5mo ago
  Releases keep shifting from API forward to product forward, with API now lagging behind proprietary product surface and special partnerships. I'd not be surprised if this is the year where some models simply stop being available as a plain API, while foundation model companies succeed at capturing more use cases in their own software.
  • throw03172019 5mo ago
    Possibly but you’d think they enjoy taking money for a product that supports itself (API)
    • blixt 5mo ago
      Yeah this can go many ways but there's a world where OpenAI doesn't sell direct model access for the same reasons Cloudflare doesn't sell direct hardware access.
• w10-1 5mo ago
  NYTimes article - on the same day? https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/23/technology/openai-new-model.html I can see how some model releases would meet the NY Times news-worthy threshold if they demonstrated significance to users - i.e., if most users were astir and competitors were re-thinking their situation. However, this same-day article came out before people really looked at it. It seems largely intended to contrast OpenAI with Anthropic's caution, before there has been any evidence that the new model has cyber-security implications. It's not at all clear that the broader discourse is helping, if even the NY Times is itself producing slop just to stoke questions.
• Schlagbohrer 5mo ago
  entering this comments area wondering if it will be full of complaints about the new personality, as with every single LLM update
• aetherspawn 5mo ago
  Umm yeah but this is like every release in the last 3 years. The big question is: does it still just write slop, or not? Fool me once, fool me twice, fool me for the 32nd time, it’s probably still just slop.
• adam12 5mo ago
  "Sometime with GPT-5.5 I become lazy" I don't want to be lazy.
  • embedding-shape 5mo ago
    Meanwhile, me being lazy is what makes me a better developer. If I wasn't lazy, I wouldn't be able to program either I think.
• nickandbro 5mo ago
  I just prompted GPT-5.5 Pro "Solve Nuclear Fusion" and it one shotted it (kidding obviously)
• c0rruptbytes 5mo ago
  literally cannot launch the codex app anymore
• deaux 5mo ago
  ctrl+f "cutoff, 0 results" Surely it doesn't still have the same ancient data cutoff as 5.4 did?
• gcanyon 5mo ago
  Once upon a time humans had to memorize log tables. Once upon a time humans had to manually advance the spark ignition as their car's engine revved faster. Once upon a time humans had to know the architecture of a CPU to code for it. History is full of instances of humans meeting technology where it was, accommodating for its limitations. We are approaching a point where machines accommodate to our limitations -- it's not a point, really, but a spectrum that we've been on. It's going to be a bumpy ride.
  • laweijfmvo 5mo ago
    i still don’t think the current generation of AI is building better software than strong humans. it excels at writing code, because a computer will always be faster at generating typo-free code than my fingers, but without expert guidance and oversight the best it can do is on par with what we can. IMO
• bandrami 5mo ago
  Cool. Now there will be a week or "this is the greatest model ever and I think mine just gained sentience", followed by a week of "I think they must have just nerfed it because it's not as good as it was a week ago", followed by three weeks of smart people cargo culting the specific incantations they then convince themselves make it work best.
  • nubg 5mo ago
    followed by some hormuz closures, followed by gpt-5.6...
• maxdo 5mo ago
  With such a huge progress of open ai and anthropic . How Chinese open source provides even think to make comparable money . I have a few friends in China they all use Claude. To train the model cost the same but the output from open source model id imagine is 1000 times less . Money flow for them outside of China is abysmal
• deleted 5mo ago
  [deleted]
• renecito 5mo ago
  why the stats of every AI on every release looks around the same? Are the tests getting harder and harder so the older AIs look worst and the new ones look like they are "almost there" ?
  • gordonhart 5mo ago
    Yes, once benchmarks get saturated they get replaced by harder ones. You don’t see GSM8K, MMLU, or HellaSwag anymore because they’re essentially solved. It takes constant work to make benchmarks hard enough to show meaningful model performance differences but easy enough to score higher than the noise threshold.
• hiverrbeyy 5mo ago
  [dead]
• journal 5mo ago
  does it have cached pricing?
• rarisma 5mo ago
  I like that its more consistent than the 4o and o4 days but still 5.4, 5.3, 5.2, etc still are a mess, for example 5.2 and 5.1 don't have mini models and 5.3 was codex only. Anthropic is slightly better but where is 4.6 or 4.7 haiku or 4.7 sonnet etc.
  • jasonjmcghee 5mo ago
    Opus 4.7 feels worse for me than 4.6, and that's not even taking into account the 50% extra tokens at 3x the price
    • algoth1 5mo ago
      Same here
• aussieguy1234 5mo ago
  If SWE-Bench Verified is no longer a good measure of agentic coding abilities, what benchmark now is?
• goldfish_gemma4 5mo ago
  [dead]
• theihtisham 5mo ago
  i just installed Codex and And Gave try to GPT 5.5 Its Good As compare to previous one
• PilotJeff 5mo ago
  So exhausted from all this endless bs…. Keep releasing , this reminds me of all the .com software during that era where wow we are already at version 3.0 it’s only been 60 Days
• max2026 5mo ago
  [dead]
• minhajulmahib 5mo ago
  [dead]
• marsven_422 5mo ago
  [dead]
• DrokAI 5mo ago
  [dead]
• Manik_agg 5mo ago
  OpenAI finally catching up with claude
• khutorni 5mo ago
  > One engineer at NVIDIA who had early access to the model went as far as to say: "Losing access to GPT‑5.5 feels like I've had a limb amputated.” That's a wild statement to put into your announcement. Are LLM providers now openly bragging about our collective dependency on their models?
  • azan_ 5mo ago
    > That's a wild statement to put into your announcement. Are LLM providers now openly bragging about our collective dependency on their models? It's normal that company brags how good their product is, I really don't see what's wild about this statement.
  • embedding-shape 5mo ago
    A company (or person working for a company) claiming "I/Person X now cannot live without product Y" must be as old as marketing itself.
• svara 5mo ago
  Do we know if this is another post training fine tune or based on a much larger new pretraining run (which I believe they were calling 'Spud' internally)? The large price bump might indicate the latter.
• niklasd 5mo ago
  Just burned through my 5 hour window in Codex (Business plan) in 10 minutes with GPT-5.5. Was excited to use it, but I guess I have to wait 5 hours now (it's not yet available in the API, so I can't switch there).
• xingyi_dev 5mo ago
  [flagged]
  • merlindru 5mo ago
    highly agree, sadly, as a huge fan of Opus Opus 4.5 and 4.6 were the first models that i could talk to and get a sense that they really "understood" WHY i'm saying the things i am Opus 4.7 kinda took that away, it's a definite regression. it doesn't extrapolate. ——————————————— refactor this thing? sure, will do! wait, what do you mean "obviously do not refactor the unrelated thing that's colocated in the same file"? i'm sorry, you're absolutely right, conceptually these two things have nothing to do with each other. i see it now. i shouldn't have thought they're the same just because they're in the same file. ——————————————— whereas GPT 5.5, much like Opus 4.6, gets it. i wanted to build a MIDI listener for a macOS app i'm making, and translate every message into a new enum. that enum was to be opinionated and not to reflect MIDI message data. moreover, i explicitly said not to do bit shifting or pointer arithmetic as part of the transport. what did Opus 4.7 do? it still used pointer arithmetic for the parsing! should i have to be this explicit? it also seemingly didn't care that i wanted the enum to be opinionated and not reflect the raw MIDI values. Opus 4.6 got it right (although with ugly, questionable implementation). GPT 5.5 both immediately understood that I didn't want pointer arithmetic because of the risk of UB and that shuffling around bits is cumbersome and out of place. it started searching for alternatives, looking up crates to handle MIDI transports and parsing independently. then it built out a very lean implementation that was immediately understandable. even when i told Opus 4.7 to use packages, and even how to use them, it still added a ton of math weirdness, matching against raw MIDI packet bytes, indirection after indirection, etc. even worse, it still did so after giving them the public API i wanted them to implement. GPT 5.5 nailed it first try. incredibly impressed with this model and feel much safer delegating some harder tasks to it
• immanuwell 5mo ago
  Big claims from OpenAI as usual - GPT-5.5 sounds impressive on paper, but we've been down this road before, so I'll believe the 'no speed tradeoff' part when I see it in the wild
• kaant 5mo ago
  The '.5' models are always the actual production-ready versions. GPT-5 was for the mainstream hype, 5.5 is for the developers. I don't need it to be magically smarter; just give me lower latency, cheaper API tokens, and reliable tool-calling without hallucinations.
• vanillameow 5mo ago
  Because Opus is kind of degrading lately, I said "fuck it" and made a new OAI account and used the month free trial. I put one query into ChatGPT using 5.5 thinking - the frustrating thing was that it did put more effort into getting correct answers rather than Opus, which is just guessing. Specifically, I asked about the coding harness pi, and despite explicitly referring to it as a harness, Opus 4.7, 4.6 and Sonnet 4.6 all fell back to telling me about Aider or OpenCode and ignored my query completely, while ChatGPT said "I'll assume pi is a harness" and then did in fact find the harness. However the language of ChatGPT is still the same slop as years ago, so many headings, so many emojis, so many "the important thing nobody mentions". 10 paragraphs of text for what should be a two paragraph response. Even with custom instructions (keep answers short and succinct) and using their settings (less list, less emoji, less fluff) it's still NOTICEABLY worse than Claude on base settings. I've yet to test Codex, will get to that this weekend, but in terms of research or general Q&A I have no idea how anyone could prefer this to Claude. Unfortunately Claude has seemingly stopped giving a fuck about researching entirely.
• Flow 5mo ago
  These new models consume so many tokens. I’m very satisfied with GPT-5.2 on High. I hope they keep that one for many years
• amiune 5mo ago
  Will there ever be ChatGPT 6.0 or Claude 5.0?
• RayVR 5mo ago
  My first experience with 5.5 via ChatGPT was immensely disappointing. It was a massive reduction in quality compared to 5.4, which already had issues.
• neuroelectron 5mo ago
  Are they using RTX 5090s now?
• damnitbuilds 5mo ago
  Woop woop ! Now, after all this time, this must shurely be the release that does all software developers out of a job ? Or has Dirty Sam being caught lying, again ? Cos I've still got a programming job, and GPT can't do it for shit.
• kordlessagain 5mo ago
  If anyone wants Codex CLI containers with various MCP tools available, I built this: https://deepbluedynamics.com/nemesis https://deepbluedynamics.com/nemesis
• williamcotton 5mo ago
  One-shot converted my game from a 2D board to a 3D board along with all entities and animations. Sold! https://github.com/williamcotton/space-trader/commit/0859c657dad6515c94f23506265c0f1f775f52c4 https://github.com/williamcotton/space-trader/commit/0859c65...
• zhouquanxi 5mo ago
  [dead]
• dmd 5mo ago
  How do people feel about using Altman’s company’s stuff considering what we now know about him? I switched to Anthropic months ago because of it, but Anthropic’s product has been on a total shitshow decline train since then I’m starting to be tempted back in spite of the evil.
• Manik_agg 5mo ago
  Recently started using Codex and Chatgpt again due to claude model getting nerfed or rate limits. Tried gpt5.5 and so far good. Zapier also shared an automation benchmark where 5.5 came on top in the leaderboard https://zapier.com/benchmarks https://zapier.com/benchmarks
  • niklasd 5mo ago
    What plan do you have? With gpt-5.5 and the business subscription my 5-hour limit was finished after 10 minutes.
  • giancarlostoro 5mo ago
    You may want to read this: https://www.anthropic.com/engineering/april-23-postmortem https://www.anthropic.com/engineering/april-23-postmortem
• mannanj 5mo ago
  This might not be the place to discuss this press release by the company, though here it is. I feel like companies like OpenAI have lost their integrity and honor from past actions and activities, and then just pretend that didn't happen and use media and influence to shift focus onto denying their past. There's so much distasteful and IMO outright harmful conduct that has occurred with this company: openAI employee murdered before a large testimony and that employee's mom actively sharing posts that light Altman in a distrustful way (pointing to the CEO clearly not demonstrating proper responsibility towards this matter), theres the large amount of resignments many recent, the whole board matter where the Coup and leveraging Microsoft and large company relationships and threatening to destroy the company brought Altman back in (the anthropic company forming as a result of all that)- how can I trust them when they employ the same controversial, manipulative, abusive tactics as every other large company?
• arjunthazhath 5mo ago
  Is it better than claude code?
• onepiecenaruto 5mo ago
  had issues using this model on my codex
• deflator 5mo ago
  Got invited to try this, but it was too expensive. I gave it two tasks that I would expect Codex 5.3 xhigh to take $1-2 of tokens on. It used $20 on each, and one was on medium with the other on xhigh!