[minimaxir]

A relevant recent tweet from antirez: https://x.com/antirez/status/2054854124848415211

> Gentle reminder on how, in the recent DS4 fiesta, not just me but every other contributor found GPT 5.5 able to help immensely and Opus completely useless.

I've noticed the same for lower level squeezing-as-much-performance-as-possible code work.

[throwaway041207]

Assuming we are talking about Code/Codex are you on API billing or subscription? I have essentially unlimited API billing at my disposal and I haven't noticed any degradation of quality across Opus versions.

[chatmasta]

Same here, the enterprise version of Claude has been great. Luckily I’m not the one paying for it. We also have CoPilot and when GPT-5.4 came out, and was 1x request cost, I was very impressed but haven’t had much time to compare the two.

I also don’t have time to do much personal coding outside of work, so I haven’t subscribed to a personal one yet. But I intend to go for Codex just to balance the Claude at work and also because of the hostile moves from Anthropic toward their consumer business.

[rjh29]

There's so much subjectivity with models. As soon as a new model comes out people act like the last model they used for 6 months was completely useless.

[sowbug]

That's a corollary of the Jevons paradox, isn't it? Six months ago I was watching every line of my LLM's code generation like a hawk. Now I give it a few assignments before bed and wake up to see what's live from the CI/CD pipeline. Expectations and usage have ratcheted up.

[sanxiyn]

There is a benchmark for performance work, and I think it is not being optimized by model vendors. The latest result from GSO is that both Opus 4.6 and 4.7 slightly outperforms GPT 5.5. This also matches my experience.

https://gso-bench.github.io/

[vitorsr]

Tasks are taken from commit histories in public Git repositories which defeats the purpose.