Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- > Sol, Terra and Luna
So the next naming scheme might be FTX, Madoff and Enron? :^)
by scrlk - steady lads, deploying more capitalby czk
- > We're also launching GPT‑5.6 Sol on Cerebras at up to 750 tokens per second in July, bringing frontier intelligence to customers at unprecedented speed.
This is really exciting. I work on voice AI, and we're still using 4.1/4.1 mini since none of the frontier models come close on latency. I'm excited to be able to have more interactive experiences, I think it'll unlock new ways of working with these models.
by supermdguy - Also building voice agents and have found GPT 5.4 with no thinking to be the sweet spot for latency vs intelligence vs cost.
GPT 5.5 with no reasoning is actually slightly faster, and much smarter, but too expensive.
What I'm really looking forward to are the next gen speech to speech models. gpt-realtime-2 is almost there, but not quite good enough for our use case. 5.4 actually beats it on answer latency even cascaded with stt/tts.
by MitziMoto - Previewing <minor version bump>: a next-generation modelby anentropic
- An LLM wrote the announcementby lionkor
- Exactly. If it's next gen then why is it 5.6 and not 6?by snthpy
- "We're also launching GPT‑5.6 Sol on Cerebras at up to 750 tokens per second in July, bringing frontier intelligence to customers at unprecedented speed. Access will initially be limited to select customers as we expand capacity."
This seems like it would be the largest and first closed-source model Cerebras has offered till date
by sim04ful - Codex Spark models already run on Cerebrasby ComputerGuru
- “ Terra has competitive performance to GPT‑5.5 [while being 2x cheaper]…”
To me that means “it’s an inferior product but marketing dictates we try and hide that.”
And “our most robust safety stack to date. We strengthened protections for higher-risk activity, sensitive cyber requests, and repeated misuse, and spent multiple weeks finding weaknesses, pressure-testing our system, and hardening it against real-world attacks” is of zero value to me at best, and most likely to my detriment (increasing refusals or nerfing utility). Why do providers keep leading with that? Are there customers (besides support ChatGPT chatbot users, maybe??) that ask for this?
by ComputerGuru - That message is obviously aimed at the government. See the other thread.by dcre
- Maybe that message is for investors.by goobatrooba
- The point of Terra is to be cheaper than the best model while being pretty good. Of course it’s inferior in intelligence.by beering
- >> Terra has competitive performance to GPT‑5.5 [while being 2x cheaper]…
> To me that means “it’s an inferior product but marketing dictates we try and hide that.”
I interpret this to mean you're about to get today's mainline performance at a fraction of the price.
by typpo - > Additionally, we’re introducing a new `ultra` mode that goes beyond the capabilities of a single agent by leveraging subagents to accelerate complex work.
I'm curious about how does this work? Do the subagents also get to use the same tools? Will the client be flooded with tool calls? Why extra pricing for a new "model" when the same thing can happen in the client with more controls?
And if it's an army of subagents, why do they compare it to Fable and Mythos? Those models with similar harness would probably bench better I'm guessing
by mohsen1 - Claude also has ultra code mode which is exactly the same thing. This seems to be different from pro however.by simianwords
- I'm shocked they didn't use subagents already. Maybe they're just talking about their web deployment being unified with codex?by alansaber
- Yeah, I'm interested too. My guess for the reason, if not purely to eke out more performance, is so they can cleanly gather real-world data on this kind of usage.by jamilton
- Sounds like an Agent using an Agent like Mr. Meeseeks.by koolala
- If it's anything like Claude Ultracode, it burns 3 million tokens in half an hour with a single prompt.by rolisz
- Don’t all the major harnesses (pi, Claude code, codex) utilize sub agents? Def if you direct it to, but I’ve seen at least pi spin them up without explicit instruction.by derwiki
- If it's anything like ClaudeCode's ultracode, it's nothing new or revolutionary.
It's essentially a bunch of subagents being called by a deterministic script written by the main model thread, each eating tokens for lunch and output of which is synthesized by an orchestrator agent.
by gck1 - If you used GPT-5.5 over the last 24 hours or so, you may have already had access to 5.6.
I've been running some tests on a harness we're building, and suddenly saw a jump in a few points yesterday. I reran the vanilla codex benchmark and saw an ~88% score on Terminal Bench 2.1 from GPT-5.5 on vanilla Codex.
The biggest indicator, beyond the score, was that 3 tests which frequently hit "safety" blockers with 5.5 started succeeding last night without warning.
by jumploops - these things can just change with infrastructure changes rather than be some mysterious A/B testing.by hhh
- I think GPT writes code the best. How well will it write in version 5.6? It gives me chills.
Recently, I went head-to-head with GPT on nearly 2,000 lines of code, and GPT's solution was superior and faster. I even referenced multiple codebases on GitHub while trying, but they were incomparable to GPT.
So using GPT brings both fear and excitement.
The fear comes from realizing that this level of code is now the average for most people. The excitement comes from knowing that I can now study and learn at this level too.
I'm really looking forward to seeing how much more advanced the code will be with the upgrade to 5.6.
by jdw64 - > I even referenced multiple code bases on GitHub
Well, GPT referenced every GitHub code base, no wonder it won! :)
by stagger87 - I have long felt like "out of the box", I really dislike gpt's coding style. It seems really verbose and likely to write way too much error handling and wordy comments and worse at finding existing functionality to reuse rather than writing everything from scratch. This has been relatively easy to mitigate with prompting, but I still find it annoying.
YMMV I guess!
by sanderjd - Codex 5.4/5.5 has been great for me as well compared to Claude Opus.
I've been mostly using it for Godot/GDScript code reviews, rubber duckying, asking it for better ideas for naming stuff (one of the hardest problems in programing)
I still can't trust it for generating code for entire files/classes/projects, because it's still icky, creating unnecessary variables and functions, using multiple `if`s instead of `and` or `or`, but it's good enough for generating Mac/iOS apps for my personal use in SwiftUI because fuck trying to keep up with Apple's documentation, or even migrating ancient Visual Basic stuff I made as a kid up to SwiftUI :)
> So using GPT brings both fear and excitement.
Only excitement for me. I've never been more productive, not because I ask AI to make something for me, but it helps me make what I was already going to, but better and quicker.
AI like any other tool could help smart people be smarter and dumb people be dumber, rather kinda like Toklien's Ring: You could be Sauron or you could be Bilbo or Frodo, or you could be Gollum :)
by Razengan - Is it possible for you to provide examples? What were you trying to solve? What was your solution and why was GPT's solution superior and faster?by 8bitsout
- I'm suspect on how much of a coding advance it will be.
Seems odd that their announcement has zero coding benchmarks, with the closest related thing being terminal bench.