HN

Comments (350)

• dang
  All: for comments on the policy side please go to this related thread:U.S. government will decide who gets to use GPT-5.6 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48690101
• Menu

  gandreani
  Easily the most interesting part of this announcement is buried in the second to last paragraph:"We're also launching GPT‑5.6 Sol on Cerebras at up to 750 tokens per second in July, bringing frontier intelligence to customers at unprecedented speed. Access will initially be limited to select customers as we expand capacity."750 tokens/s on a frontier model is going to be extremely interesting. I doubt this new version is anything but a version bump in terms of capabilities but if we can start getting these answers back faster, they end up being more useful.Just off the top of my head, I can think of the tedious task of finding certain functionality within a codebase. I usually can't beat an AI agent harness at this task today. If the AI model is 3x faster I have less of chance.
• Menu

  HyperL0gi
  Here is a trend I'm noticing:- GPT-5 mini costs $0.25/$2 and will be discontinued in December.- GPT-5.4 mini costs $0.75/$4.5 and is supposed to be the replacement.- GPT-5.4 nano costs $0.2/$1.25 and, while it ranks better in benchmarks than GPT-5 mini, it's not even close when you test it in real scenarios.So you're left being forced to go to GPT 5.4 mini if you use 5 mini today.The same thing is happening here as their “Luna“ model will cost $1/$6.Can't we just stay with the models we actually want? I don't need GPT 5.4 mini. GPT-5 does the job.Maybe it’s the realization that it was never that cheap in the first place and they're forcing us to upgrade in a slow and painful way.
• Menu

  jdw64
  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.
• Menu

  jumploops
  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.
• Menu

  mohsen1
  > 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
• Menu

  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?
• Menu

  sim04ful
  "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
• Menu

  OsrsNeedsf2P
  Like Mythos before it, I'm simply not excited about a model I can't use
• anentropic
  Previewing <minor version bump>: a next-generation model
• supermdguy
  > 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.
• Topfi
  Is this a new pre training run independent of 5.5s or post trained on it with Cerebras support and a rebrand of Pro mode at more usable speeds as Sol? The latter seems more likely to me, especially as 5.5 scales very well across its modes so separate branding could make sense, but I don’t see any clear information either way.
• scrlk
  > Sol, Terra and LunaSo the next naming scheme might be FTX, Madoff and Enron? :^)
• Menu

  m3h
  If GPT-5.6 preview is not available outside US government approved "trusted partners", I don't see how the General Available can be trusted later.Who knows what they will fix, block or change in the model between the preview and GA time. Open models can't arrive soon enough.
• Menu

  firasd
  Some interesting stats here about the current landscape https://arena.ai/leaderboard/agentAgent Arena (Dynamic ranking of models on how well they orchestrate tools for real-world agentic tasks, based on signals like tool reliability, task completion, and steerability.)Top 10, Highest rank to lowestClaude Fable 5 (High), Claude Opus 4.8 (Thinking), GPT 5.5 (xHigh), Claude Opus 4.7 (Thinking), GPT 5.5 (High), Claude Opus 4.7, Claude Opus 4.6, GPT 5.5, GPT 5.4 (High), GLM 5.2 (Max)Text Arena View overall rankings across various AI models in text-to-text tasks across math, coding, creative writing, and other open-ended domains.Top 10, Highest rank to lowestclaude-fable-5, claude-opus-4-6-thinking, claude-opus-4-7-thinking, claude-opus-4-6, claude-opus-4-7, muse-spark, gemini-3.1-pro-preview, gemini-3-pro, claude-opus-4-8-thinking, gpt-5.5-high
• Menu

  seaal
  Did GPT-5.6 Sol Ultra decide the terrible colors for the benchmark graphs?
• Menu

  NetOpWibby
  How are they able to compare with Fable when Fable was only available for three days?
• Menu

  ChrisLTD
  If it's a new generation why isn't it GPT-6?
• Menu

  mekpro
  We need more coding benchmark score. Not sure that winning terminalbench 2.1 alone is a clear win over Fable/Mythos yet.
• woeirua
  The choice of the name Sol is interesting for those Raised By Wolves fans out there… “Praise Sol!”
• ant-kinesthetic
  How much dynamic routing do we think is being done here, especially in light of the cheaper options be 2x less cost than 5.5. I think learned routing is interesting because it could be the case that it only works as a way to get token and cost efficiency for in distribution tasks (like these benchmarks), yet on real world scenarios it could trend towards the same cost as the Sol cost.
• jimmydoe
  Is there a list of Gov-approved companies?If this is the new norm, we as workers should all start look for jobs in those companies.
• Menu

  sim04ful
  Sol and 5.5 pro are in parity at $5 input / $30 output. What I'm inferring from this is that: - model weight size didn't change, and this is mostly a result of better model architecture and scaled up RL - better hardware utilization and and they're making better margins OR - worse hardware utilization and they're okay with digging into their margins.
• anon
  undefined
• Menu

  loufe
  "Next generation model"If it was the next generation, why isn't it a major version change..?
• Menu

  corygarms
  I'll buy that its next generation if the svg bicycle pelican is carrying a baby
• Menu

  bijowo1676
  Waiting for @simonw to report on this, before I read and try it
• Menu

  leumon
  > We plan to make them more broadly available to people using ChatGPT, Codex, and the API soon.I hope this means then fable will also get released again.
• bluepeter
  I feel a bit like a Soviet hearing about Levi’s or the latest Springsteen release. C'mon!
• Menu

  vatsachak
  All of these LLMs are getting better at being at an LLMBut GPT-5.5 is as useful an LLM can be; it has solved lemmas I've thought about for a year, it can implement typed STLCs in Rust when I give it a formal grammar, it can help me analyze Postgres planner dumps.It's great at tasks that have short solutions but- they cannot learn based on a project- their long term planning capabilities are worse than worms- they are unconfident in decision making- their internal representations are disgusting compared to JEPA- they don't have any "system clock" like humans and computers do- LLM architecture is not modular like computer architecture or human brain architectureThere's so many issues with LLMs. I wish that companies can start working on the next generation of architectures before the bubble pops
• Menu

  mccoyb
  When will GPT-5.6 Protomolecule drop? Me and the boys on Eros can't wait to get our hands on it!
• Menu

  rappatic
  Seems like OpenAI has succumbed to the urge to give their models catchy names like Anthropic does
• swe_dima
  Pleasantly surprised that it costs as GPT 5.5, thank god for the competition.
• dainiusse
  I looked at the charts and it is clear that 88% from OpenAI is more than 88% from Anthropic.
• smeeth
  The sooner the USG figures out a standard process for approving releases the better. There are many differing opinions on how much to regulate AI, but I think we can all agree ad-hoc policy sucks.
• Menu

  duggan
  > As part of our ongoing engagement with the U.S. government, we previewed our plans and the models’ capabilities ahead of today’s launch. At their request, we are starting with a limited preview for a small group of trusted partners whose participation has been shared with the government, before releasing more broadly.The clowns in the US administration can barely remain coherent from one sentence to the next.Having them be the gatekeepers of technological progress in 2026 is fucking lame.
• Menu

  zkmon
  It appears that between GLM-5.2 and GPT-5.6, anthropic is feeling the heat, atleast in the bang-for-the-buck heuristic?
• anon
  undefined
• ponyous
  How can I become a trusted organization/partner? For my SaaS[0] where we generate 3D models using code it would be an absolute game changer to have such speedy generations. This would mean AI could do 10 iterations in the time it makes 1 now.[0]: GrandpaCAD.com
• anon
  undefined
• anon
  undefined
• Menu

  low_tech_punk
  all the emphasis on cyber security. feels like a reaction to anthropic, not a real next generation.
• Menu

  nsingh2
  I'm really getting sick of reading about safeguards and what I'm not allowed to do on every model release.
• Menu

  GodelNumbering
  I do not like the fact that this forces people to remember one more hierarchy of "Sol vs Terra vs Luna". OpenAI was supposed to simplify their naming since at least 2025.
• anon
  undefined
• mikkelam
  Would love to see benchmarks on cognition's FrontierCode
• Menu

  ddwrll
  What happened to the nano/mini/standard/pro naming scheme, which worked perfectly fine and is intuitive to understand? Why does OpenAI insist on having the most inconsistent and confusing model and product names possible?I'm looking at you Codex.
• phplovesong
  Is there any model that rivals Opus or Fable? I would like to try something else, as Anthropic is pretty suss.
• kissgyorgy
  we expect substantial benefit for legitimate defensive work, while meaningfully constraining prohibited offensive use. That's literally impossible. Writing an exploit agains a known vulnerability needs the exact same knowledge that defending against the exploit of the same vulnerability.Also just making the model better at code is just making it better to writing offensive code.
• urig
  It's only next generation? Anthropic has frontier models! lol
• h4x0rr
  FUCK the US government. That's it, I am rooting for China now
• Menu

  nopakos
  People where mocking EU for regulations and now this is happening in the US. I know that Europe is behind in AI but still...
• micimize
  Haven't we established defensive and offensive security usage are intractably entangled? I.e. "patch all [security] bugs, make no mistakes" gives one a list of potential exploits to hand off to less capable models.Doesn't that undermine all good-faith discourse on cybersecurity safeguards, controlled usage etc? Or is that overstating the case (I'm not a security researcher myself so kinda parroting).
• Menu

  osti
  Sol? Looks like openai is jealous of anthropics good model naming ability and wants to emulate it.
• Menu

  ddp26
  I'm going to pre-register my prediction that GPT-5.6 Sol is significantly behind Claude Fable 5, as evaluated by general consensus once time has passed for people to get familiar with both.
• Menu

  hereme888
  Seems like OpenAI's strategy to release models after Anthropic has been paying off.Is it just me, or does it seem like Anthropic has been more of a pioneer the past few years, and OpenAI tries to copy features they like?
• Menu

  arendtio
  I didn't know that I was color blind, but thanks to those charts, I think I need to see a doctor...I mean, you can read them even without the colors, but who on earth thought that those are a good set of colors? Oh, I forgot it was probably someone on 'Sol'.
• simianwords
  No comments on the cerebras version that might finally enable intelligent voice mode instead of being stuck with 4o-mini class
• throwitaway222
  Sun Earth Moon
• ChrisArchitect
  Pre-official discussions:https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48678789https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48683021
• simianwords
  Thoughts1. Naming convention is copied from Anthropic and honestly is more catchy than a number (amongst normal people)2. How in the world did Anthropic have to do all the theatrics about Mythos just to have OpenAI release an equivalent or stronger model a month later without any drama???3. Cheaper models are just don’t fit any usecase imo and OpenAI knows it so they keep increasing the floor - I’m still convinced task per capability is reduced with each release4. How in the world would open source models keep up with the multi layer security? Either this security is all theater or we will finally see a ceiling in open source models because by definition they can’t have those protections5. Cybersecurity things are boring to me because it’s all zero sum cat and mouse games
• moomin
  The language used in this press release is borderline hilarious. It’s simultaneously trying to tell you how great it is while also telling it’s not THAT great. Nothing to worry about, move along.
• andrewlin247
  they're trying to be anthropic with these model names
• thesurlydev
  Not really news until it's widely available.Anyone know the latest around Fable being re-released after gov smackdown?
• Menu

  submeta
  Are GPT 5.5 and Opus 4.8 the last models we're going te be allowed to use in Europe? Is there going to be a cut, and we're only be allowed to use less capabale models outside of the US?I mean, if they deem Fable 5 to powerful to share with the rest of the world, what's left for us?
• Menu

  meetpateltech
  Another model family, another naming scheme to get used to.Sol Ultra ≈ ProSol ≈ StandardTerra ≈ MiniLuna ≈ Nano
• BoorishBears
  > For GPT‑5.6 and later models, cache writes are billed at 1.25x the model’s uncached input rate, while cache reads continue to receive the 90% cached-input discount.Not them joining Anthropic with this bullshit. *Caching infrastructure is already a leaky abstraction over a feature that is not as reliable or debuggable to the end user as it should be, charging for the 'privilege' of interacting with it is really annoying.(* for reference on 'this bullshit': ChatGPT previously didn't require anything special for a basic level of caching. Unless you wanted extended cache times, it'd just "do the right thing" and try to use nodes that had your prefix already cached in memory)
• Menu

  ALittleLight
  I hate not being able to use the latest models. There needs to be a much faster resolution to whatever is happening with the federal government.
• Menu

  da_grift_shift
  Flagged activity can also trigger account-level review across relevant conversations and risk signals, consistent with our terms and policies around content retention and review. Looking beyond a single conversation helps our systems distinguish persistent malicious behavior from legitimate dual-use security work, where similar technical concepts may appear in very different contexts. Fascinating!Every conversation you have with these "more capable" models will be monitored and joined up and then your entire account might one day be tagged as Distiller or Cyber Threat Actor or whatnot. When combined with identity verification (which isn't discussed in this press release), expect people to be falsely flagged and banned from ever using OpenAI models again.Wish I could find the thread from last week where discussions of exactly this kind of thing were dismissed as daft and outlandish.
• masonwan
  Guess it's just another price bump hidden behind output token speed.
• gck1
  [dead]
• randomuser558
  [flagged]
• w4yai
  [flagged]
• wonkyfruit
  TLDR - It's not quite Mythos but it uses about 5 times less tokens, and those tokens are also cheaper?https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HLwuJLvbwAAOfQZ?format=jpg&name=...
• Menu

  HarHarVeryFunny
  [flagged]
• anon
  undefined
• Menu

  nakedrobot2
  This is disgusting groveling to the Orange Shit Stain.Beam me up Scotty. No intelligent life forms on this planet.
• Menu

  rvz
  Other than the worst naming I have ever seen (Sol / Terra / Luna), the pricing is still expensive:> GPT‑5.6 is priced per 1M tokens across three model sizes:> Sol is $5 input / $30 output;> Terra is $2.50 input / $15 output> Luna is $1 input / $6 output.The OpenAI casino has never been more ready to take your money on gambling even more tokens.
• CurbStomper
  Could not care less.
• ericyd
  whoa, a new model that surpasses benchmarks of other models? wild.
• anon
  undefined
• Menu

  johnnyApplePRNG
  Doesn't it strike anyone as strange that SOL, TERRA, and LUNA are all quasi-scam crypto tickers?
• throwitaway222
  Time to create more LLM based startups. * House design plans from prompts * Government surveillance of public communication * Extracting world/spatial concepts from language models (do we really need a world/spatial models now?) * Driverless City planning startups * Election vote rigging/harvesting startups * Video game NPC backstory startups (all NPCs in GTA 6 go to work, go home, shower, go to sleep now?) Keep moving don't doom.
• Menu

  JohnRoseDev
  I can’t help but think that these benchmarks are completely fake. Sam even posted a benchmark on X a couple days ago of how the ‘complete version’ of 5.5 cyber was already ahead of Mythos apparently. This just feels like absolutely fake nonsense. The impact of Mythos on the industry was clear and in front of everyone’s eyes. The amount of vulnerabilities Mozilla fixed. The vulnerabilities and exploits Anthropic showcased in that blog post about the chrome sandbox escape etc. And now we’re supposed to believe this 5.5 cyber is already ahead of Mythos, ok. And yeah, gpt 5.6 is even further ahead, alright.