However, the "plus" plan absolutely could use some trimming.

Those users go to chat.openai.com (or download the app), type text in the box and click send.

Port unix-sed from c to java with a full test suite and all options supported.

Somewhere between "it answers questions of life" and "it beats PhDs at math questions", I'd like to see one LLM take this, IMO, rather "pure" language task and succeeed.

It is complicated, but it isn't complex. It's string operations with a deep but not that deep expression system and flag set.

It is well-described and documented on the internet, and presumably training sets. It is succinctly described as a problem that virtually all computer coders would understand what it entailed if it were assigned to them. It is drudgerous, showing the opportunity for LLMs to show how they would improve true productivity.

GPT fails to do anything other than the most basic substitute operations. Claude was only slightly better, but to its detriment hallucinated massive amounts and made fake passing test cases that didn't even test the code.

The reaction I get to this test is ambivalence, but IMO if LLMs could help port entire software packages between languages with similar feature sets (aside from Turing Completeness), then software cross-use would explode, and maybe we could port "vulnerable" code to "safe" Rust en masse.

I get it, it's not what they are chasing customer-wise. They want to write (in n-gate terms) webcrap.

I think the naming scheme is just fine and is very straightforward to anyone who pays the slightest bit of attention.

So far I've only used o3-pro a bit today, and it's a bit too heavy to use interactively (fire it off, revisit in 10-15 minutes), but it seems to generate much cleaner/more well organized code and answers.

I feel like the benchmarks aren't really doing a good job at capturing/reflecting capabilities atm. eg, while Claude 4 Sonnet appears to score about as well as Opus 4, in my usage Opus is always significantly better at solving my problem/writing the code I need.

Besides especially complex/gnarly problems, I feel like a lot of the different models are all good enough and it comes down to reliability. For example, I've stopped using Claude for work basically because multiple times now it's completely eaten my prompts and even artifacts it's generated. Also, it hits limits ridiculously fast (and does so even when on network/resource failures).

I use 4.1 as my workhorse for code interpreter work (creating graphs/charts w/ matplotlib, basic df stuff, converting tables to markdown) as it's just better integrated than the others and so far I haven't caught 4.1 transposing/having errors with numbers (which I've noticed w/ 4o and Sonnet).

Having tested most of the leading edge open and closed models a fair amount, 4.5 is still my current preferred model to actually talk to/make judgement calls (particularly with translations). Again, not reflected in benchmarks, but 4.5 is the only model that gives me the feeling I had when first talking to Opus 3 (eg, of actual fluid intelligence, and a pleasant personality that isn't overly sychophantic) - Opus 4 is a huge regression in that respect for me.

(I also use Codex, Roo Code, Windsurf, and a few other API-based tools, but tbt, OpenAI's ChatGPT UI is generally better for how I leverage the models in my workflow.)

At this point I don't need smarter general models for my work, I need models that don't hallucinate, that are faster/cheaper, and that have better taste in specific domains. I think that's where we're going to see improvements moving forward.

Also, does anybody know what limits o3-pro has under the team plan? I don't see it available in the model picker at all (on team).

Dangerous incentives IMO.

o4-mini-high is the label on chatgpt.com for what in the API is called o4-mini with reasoning={"effort": "high"}. Whereas o4-mini on chatgpt.com is the same thing as reasoning={"effort": "medium"} in the API.

o3 can also be run via the API with reasoning={"effort": "high"}.

o3-pro is different than o3 with high reasoning. It has a separate endpoint, and it runs for much longer.

See https://platform.openai.com/docs/guides/reasoning?api-mode=r...

https://simonwillison.net/2025/Jun/10/o3-pro/

What I mean by that, is if a neuron implements a sigmoid function and its input weights are 10,1,2,3 that means if the first input is active, then evaluation the other ones is mathematically pointless, since it doesn't change the result, which recursively means the inputs of those neurons that contribute to the precursors are pointless as well.

I have no idea how feasible or practical is it to implement such an optimization and full network scale, but I think its interesting to think about

There was always going to be diminishing returns in these benchmarks. It's by construction. It's mathematically impossible for that not to happen. But it doesn't mean the models are getting better at a slower pace.

Benchmark space is just a proxy for what we care about, but don't confuse it for the actual destination.

If you want, you can choose to look at a different set of benchmarks like ARC-AGI-2 or Epoch and observe greater than linear improvements, and forget that these easier benchmarks exist.

Even though it's a large10% increase first then only a 0.999% increase.

This kind of expectations explains why there hasn't been a GPT-5 so far, and why we get a dumb numbering scheme instead for no reason.

At least Claude eventually decided not to care anymore and release Claude 4 even if the jump from 3.7 isn't particularly spectacular. We're well into the diminishing returns at this point, so it doesn't really make sense to postpone the major version bump, it's not like they're going to make a big leap again anytime soon.