←back to thread

GPT-5.2

(openai.com)
1019 points atgctg | 7 comments | 11 Dec 25 18:04 UTC | HN request time: 0.639s | source | bottom
Show context
minadotcom ◴[11 Dec 25 18:29 UTC] No.46235074[source]▶
They used to compare to competing models from Anthropic, Google DeepMind, DeepSeek, etc. Seems that now they only compare to their own models. Does this mean that the GPT-series is performing worse than its competitors (given the "code red" at OpenAI)?
replies(4): >>46235094 #>>46235110 #>>46235145 #>>46236816 #
1. Tiberium ◴[11 Dec 25 18:35 UTC] No.46235145[source]▶
They did compare it to other models: https://x.com/OpenAI/status/1999182104362668275

https://i.imgur.com/e0iB8KC.png

replies(3): >>46235919 #>>46238146 #>>46241683 #
2. enlyth ◴[11 Dec 25 19:22 UTC] No.46235919[source]▶
This looks cherry-picked, for example Claude Opus had a higher score on SWE-Bench Verified so they conveniently left it out, also GDPval is literally a benchmark made by OpenAI
replies(2): >>46237361 #>>46239897 #
3. minadotcom ◴[11 Dec 25 21:24 UTC] No.46237361[source]▶
agreed.
4. whimsicalism ◴[11 Dec 25 22:27 UTC] No.46238146[source]▶
uh oh, where did SWE bench go :D
replies(1): >>46240109 #
5. tobias2014 ◴[12 Dec 25 01:41 UTC] No.46239897[source]▶
And who believes that the difference between 91.9% and 92.4% is significant in these benchmarks? Clearly these have margins of error that are swept under the rug.
6. whimsicalism ◴[12 Dec 25 02:11 UTC] No.46240109[source]▶
maybe they will release with gpt-5.2-codex
7. sergdigon ◴[12 Dec 25 07:20 UTC] No.46241683[source]▶
The fact that the post is comparing their reasoning model against gemini 3 pro (the "non reasoning" model) and not gemini 3 pro deep think (the reasoning one) is quite nasty. If you compare GPT5.2 thinking to gemini 3 pro deep think, the scores are quite similar (sometimes one is better sometimes the other one is)