←back to thread

GPT-5.2

(openai.com)
1019 points atgctg | 5 comments | 11 Dec 25 18:04 UTC | HN request time: 0.693s | source
Show context
mmaunder ◴[11 Dec 25 21:58 UTC] No.46237785[source]▶
Weirdly, the blog announcement completely omits the actual new context window size which is 400,000: https://platform.openai.com/docs/models/gpt-5.2

Can I just say !!!!!!!! Hell yeah! Blog post indicates it's also much better at using the full context.

Congrats OpenAI team. Huge day for you folks!!

Started on Claude Code and like many of you, had that omg CC moment we all had. Then got greedy.

Switched over to Codex when 5.1 came out. WOW. Really nice acceleration in my Rust/CUDA project which is a gnarly one.

Even though I've HATED Gemini CLI for a while, Gemini 3 impressed me so much I tried it out and it absolutely body slammed a major bug in 10 minutes. Started using it to consult on commits. Was so impressed it became my daily driver. Huge mistake. I almost lost my mind after a week of this fighting it. Isane bias towards action. Ignoring user instructions. Garbage characters in output. Absolutely no observability in its thought process. And on and on.

Switched back to Codex just in time for 5.1 codex max xhigh which I've been using for a week, and it was like a breath of fresh air. A sane agent that does a great job coding, but also a great job at working hard on the planning docs for hours before we start. Listens to user feedback. Observability on chain of thought. Moves reasonably quickly. And also makes it easy to pay them more when I need more capacity.

And then today GPT-5.2 with an xhigh mode. I feel like xmass has come early. Right as I'm doing a huge Rust/CUDA/Math-heavy refactor. THANK YOU!!

replies(8): >>46237912 #>>46238166 #>>46238297 #>>46240408 #>>46240891 #>>46241079 #>>46241471 #>>46241483 #
1. freedomben ◴[11 Dec 25 22:28 UTC] No.46238166[source]▶
I haven't done a ton of testing due to cost, but so far I've actually gotten worse results with xhigh than high with gpt-5.1-codex-max. Made me wonder if it was somehow a PEBKAC error. Have you done much comparison between high and xhigh?
replies(3): >>46238482 #>>46238491 #>>46238659 #
2. tekacs ◴[11 Dec 25 22:55 UTC] No.46238482[source]▶
I found the same with Max xhigh. To the point that I switched back to just 5.1 High from 5.1 Codex Max. Maybe I should’ve tried Max high first.
3. dudeinhawaii ◴[11 Dec 25 22:55 UTC] No.46238491[source]▶
This is one of those areas where I think it's about the complexity of the task. What I mean is, if you set codex to xhigh by default, you're wasting compute. IF you're setting it at xhigh when troubleshooting a complex memory bug or something, you're presumably more likely to get a quality response.

I think in general, medium ends up being the best all-purpose setting while high+ are good for single task deep-drive. Or at least that has been my experience so far. You can theoretically let with work longer on a harder task as well.

A lot appears to depend on the problem and problem domain unfortunately.

I've used max in problem sets as diverse as "troubleshooting Cyberpunk mods" and figuring out a race condition in a server backend. In those cases, it did a pretty good job of exhausting available data (finding all available logs, digging into lua files), and narrowing a bug that every other model failed to get.

I guess in some sense you have to know from the onset that it's a "hard problem". That in and of itself is subjective.

replies(1): >>46240702 #
4. robotswantdata ◴[11 Dec 25 23:12 UTC] No.46238659[source]▶
For a few weeks the Codex model has been cursed. Recommend sticking with 5.1 high , 5.2 feels good too but early days
5. wahnfrieden ◴[12 Dec 25 03:51 UTC] No.46240702[source]▶
You should also be making handoffs to/from Pro