▲I think Anthropic rushed out the release before 10am this morning to avoid having to put in comparisons to GPT-5.3-codex!
The new Opus 4.6 scores 65.4 on Terminal-Bench 2.0, up from 64.7 from GPT-5.2-codex.
GPT-5.3-codex scores 77.3.
reply▲I do not trust the AI benchmarks much, they often do not line up with my experience.
That said ... I do think Codex 5.2 was the best coding model for more complex tasks, albeit quite slow.
So very much looking forward to trying out 5.3.
reply▲NitpickLawyer1 hour ago
[-] Just some anecdata++ here but I found 5.2 to be really good at code review. So I can have something crunched by cheaper models, reviewed async by codex and then re-prompt with the findings from the review. It finds good things, doesn't flag nits (if prompted not to) and the overall flow is worth it for me. Speed loss doesn't impact this flow that much.
reply▲kilroy12344 minutes ago
[-] Personally, I have Claude do the coding. Then 5.2-high do the reviewing.
reply▲seunosewa17 minutes ago
[-] Then I pass the review back to Claude Opus to implement it.
reply▲VladVladikoff4 minutes ago
[-] Just curious is this a manual process or you guys have automated these steps?
reply▲5.2 Codex became my default coding model. It “feels” smarter than Opus 4.5.
I use 5.2 Codex for the entire task, then ask Opus 4.5 at the end to double check the work. It's nice to have another frontier model's opinion and ask it to spot any potential issues.
Looking forward to trying 5.3.
reply▲nerdsniper6 minutes ago
[-] Opus 4.5 still worked better for most of my work, which is generally "weird stuff". A lot of my programming involves concepts that are a bit brain-melting for LLMs, because multiple "99% of the time, assumption X is correct" are reversed for my project. I think Opus does better at not falling into those traps. Excited to try out 5.3
reply▲Yeah, these benchmarks are bogus.
Every new model overfits to the latest overhyped benchmark.
Someone should take this to a logical extreme and train a tiny model that scores better on a specific benchmark.
reply▲mrandish11 minutes ago
[-] > Yeah, these benchmarks are bogus.
It's not just over-fitting to leading benchmarks, there's also too many degrees of freedom in how a model is tested (harness, etc). Until there's standardized documentation enabling independent replication, it's all just benchmarketing .
reply▲Another day, another hn thread of "this model changes everything" followed immediately by a reply stating "actually I have the literal opposite experience and find competitor's model is the best" repeated until it's time to start the next day's thread.
reply▲clhodapp15 minutes ago
[-] And of course the benchmarks are from the school of "It's better to have a bad metric than no metric", so there really isn't any way to falsify anyone's opinions...
reply▲All anonymous as well. Who are making these claims? script kiddies? sr devs? Altman?
reply▲> Who are making these claims? script kiddies? sr devs? Altman?
AI agents, perhaps? :-D
reply▲locknitpicker42 minutes ago
[-] > All anonymous as well. Who are making these claims? script kiddies? sr devs? Altman?
You can take off your tinfoil hat. The same models can perform differently depending on the programming language, frameworks and libraries employed, and even project. Also, context does matter, and a model's output greatly varies depending on your prompt history.
reply▲BoredPositron51 minutes ago
[-] When you keep his ramblings on twitter or company blog in mind I bet he is a shit poster here.
reply▲This pretty accurately summarizes all the long discussions about AI models on HN.
reply▲Impressive jump for GPT-5.3-codex and crazy to see two top coding models come out on the same day...
reply▲Insane! I think this has to be the shortest-lived SOTA for any model so far. Competition is amazing.
reply▲they tested it at xhigh reasoning though, which is probably double the cost of Anthropic's model.
Cost to Run Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index:
GPT-5.2 Codex (xhigh): $3244
Claude Opus 4.5-reasoning: $1485
(and probably similar values for the newer models?)
reply▲With $20 gpt plan you can use xhigh no problem. With $20 Claude plan you reach the 5h limit with a single feature.
reply▲Did you look at the ARC AGI 2? Codex might be overfit for terminal bench
reply▲tedsanders5 minutes ago
[-] ARC AGI 2 has a training set that model providers can choose to train on, so really wouldn't recommend using it as a general measure of coding ability.
reply▲In my personal experience the GPT models have always been significantly better than the Claude models for agentic coding, I’m baffled why people think Claude has the edge on programming.
reply▲Opus was quite useless today. Created lots of globals, statics, forward declarations, hidden implementations in cpp files with no testable interface, erasing types, casting void pointers, I had to fix quite a lot and decouple the entangled mess.
Hopefully performance will pick up after the rollout.
reply▲itay-maman50 minutes ago
[-] Something that caught my eye from the announcement:
> GPT‑5.3‑Codex is our first model that was instrumental in creating itself. The Codex team used early versions to debug its own training
I'm happy to see the Codex team moving to this kind of dogfooding. I think this was critical for Claude Code to achieve its momentum.
reply▲aurareturn42 minutes ago
[-] More importantly, this is the early steps of a model self improving itself.
Do we still think we'll have soft take off?
reply▲quinncom25 minutes ago
[-] Exponential growth may look like a very slow increase at first, but it's still exponential growth.
reply▲reducesuffering39 minutes ago
[-] This has already been going on for years. It's just that they were using GPT 4.5 to work on GPT 5. All this announcement mean is that they're confident enough in early GPT 5.3 model output to further refine GPT 5.3 based on initial 5.3. But yes, takeoff will still happen because of this recursive self improvement works, it's just that we're already past the inception point.
reply▲I can't tell if this is a serious conversation anymore.
reply▲,,GPT‑5.3-Codex is the first model we classify as High capability for cybersecurity-related tasks under our Preparedness Framework , and the first we’ve directly trained to identify software vulnerabilities. While we don’t have definitive evidence it can automate cyber attacks end-to-end, we’re taking a precautionary approach and deploying our most comprehensive cybersecurity safety stack to date. Our mitigations include safety training, automated monitoring, trusted access for advanced capabilities, and enforcement pipelines including threat intelligence.''
While I love Codex and believe it's amazing tool, I believe their preparedness framework is out of date. As it is more and more capable of vibe coding complex apps, it's getting clear that the main security issues will come up by having more and more security critical software vibe coded.
It's great to look at systems written by humans and how well Codex can be used against software written by humans, but it's getting more important to measure the opposite: how well humans (or their own software) are able to infiltrate complex systems written mostly by Codex, and get better on that scale.
In simpler terms: Codex should write secure software by default.
reply▲ActionHank8 minutes ago
[-] I heard the other day that every time someone claps another vibe coded project embeds the api keys in the webpage.
I wonder if this will continue to be the case.
reply▲That’s just classical OpenAI trying to make us believe they’re closing on AGI…
Like all « so called » research from them and Anthropic about safety alignment and that their tech is so incredibly powerful that guardrails should be put on them.
reply▲karmasimida1 minute ago
[-] For those who cared:
GPT-5.3-Codex dominates terminal coding with a roughly 12% lead (Terminal-Bench 2.0), while Opus 4.6 retains the edge in general computer use by 8% (OSWorld).
Anyone knows the difference between OSWorld vs OSWorld Verified?
reply▲I remember when AI labs coordinated so they didn't push major announcements on the same day to avoid cannibalizing each other. Now we have AI labs pushing major announcements within 30 minutes.
reply▲They're also coordinating around Chinese New Year to compete with new releases of the major open/local models.
reply▲The labs have fully embraced the cutthroat competition, the arms race has fully shed the civilized facade of beneficient mutual cooperation.
Dirty tricks and underhanded tactics will happen - I think Demis isn't savvy in this domain, but might end up stomping out the competition on pure performance.
Elon, Sam, and Dario know how to fight ugly and do the nasty political boardroom crap. 26 is gonna be a very dramatic year, lots of cinematic potential for the eventual AI biopics.
reply▲>civilized facade of mutual cooperation
>Dirty tricks and underhanded tactics
As long the tactics are legal ( i.e. not corporate espionage, bribes etc), the no holds barred full free market competition is the best thing for the market and the consumers.
reply▲thethimble32 minutes ago
[-] The consumers are getting huge wins.
Model costs continue to collapse while capability improves.
Competition is fantastic.
reply▲This goes way back. When OpenAI launched GPT-4 in 2023, both Anthropic and Google lined up counter launches (Claude and Magic Wand) right before OpenAI's standard 10am launch time.
reply▲I wish they’d just stop pretending to care about safety, other than a few researchers at the top they care about safety only as long as they aren’t losing ground to the competition. Game theory guarantees the AI labs will do what it takes to ensure survival. Only regulation can enforce the limits, self policing won’t work when money is involved.
reply▲thethimble33 minutes ago
[-] As long as China continues to blitz forward, regulation is a direct path to losing.
reply▲You mean all paths are direct paths to losing.
reply▲The thrill of competition
reply▲Wouldn't that be illegal ? i.e. cartel to collude like that ?
reply▲A sign of the inevitible implosion !
reply▲Terminal Bench 2.0
| Name | Score |
|---------------------|-------|
| OpenAI Codex 5.3 | 77.3 |
| Anthropic Opus 4.6 | 65.4 |
reply▲greenfish658 minutes ago
[-] yea but i feel like we are over the hill on benchmaxxing, many times a model has beaten anthropic on a specific bench, but the 'feel' is that it is still not as good at coding
reply▲falloutx13 minutes ago
[-] When Anthropic beats Benchmarks its somehow earned, when OpenAi games it, its somehow about not feeling good at coding.
reply▲AstroBen56 minutes ago
[-] 'feel' is no more accurate
not saying there's a better way but both suck
reply▲The 'feel' of a single person is pretty meaningless, but when many users form a consensus over time after a model is released, it feels a lot more informative than a simple benchmark because it can shift over time as people individually discover the strong and weak points of what they're using and get better at it.
reply▲crorella29 minutes ago
[-] The variety of tasks they can do and will be asked to do is too wide and dissimilar, it will be very hard to have a transversal measurement, at most we will have area specific consensus that model X or Y is better, it is like saying one person is the best coder at everything, that does not exist.
reply▲Yea, we're going to need benchmarks that incorporate series of steps of development for a particular language and how good each model is at it.
Like can the model take your plan and ask the right questions where there appear to be holes.
How wide of architecture and system design around your language does it understand.
How does it choose to use algorithms available in the language or common libraries.
How often does it hallucinate features/libraries that aren't there.
How does it perform as context get larger.
And that's for one particular language.
reply▲thethimble30 minutes ago
[-] Speak for yourself. I've been insanely productive with Codex 5.2.
With the right scaffolding these models are able to perform serious work at high quality levels.
reply▲helloplanets12 minutes ago
[-] He wasn't saying that both of the models suck, but that the heuristics for measuring model capability suck
reply▲forrestthewoods6 minutes ago
[-] At the end of the day “feel” is what people rely on to pick which tool they use.
I’d feel unscientific and broken? Sure maybe why not.
But at the end of the day I’m going to choose what I see with my own two eyes over a number in a table.
Benchmarks are a sometimes useful to. But we are in prime Goodharts Law Territory.
reply▲When 2 multi billion giants advertise same day, it is not competition but rather a sign of struggle and survival.
With all the power of the "best artificial intelligence" at your disposition, and a lot of capital also all the brilliant minds, THIS IS WHAT YOU COULD COME UP WITH?
Interesting
reply▲rishabhaiover1 hour ago
[-] What happened to you?
reply▲AI fried brains, unfortunately.
reply▲I mean, he has a point it’s just not very eloquently written.
reply▲trilogic48 minutes ago
[-] I empathize with the situation, no elegance from them, no eloquence from me :)
reply▲Yeah they are both fighting for survival. No surprise really.
Need to keep the hype going if they are both IPO'ing later this year.
reply▲thethimble28 minutes ago
[-] The AI market is an infinite sum market.
Consider the fact that 7 year old TPUs are still sitting at near 100p utilization today.
reply▲How many IPOs can a company really do?
reply▲As many as they want. They can "spin off" and then "merge" again.
reply▲What's funny is that most of this "progress" is new datasets + post-training shaping the model's behavior (instruction + preference tuning). There is no moat besides that.
reply▲Davidzheng55 minutes ago
[-] "post-training shaping the models behavior" it seems from your wording that you find it not that dramatic. I rather find the fact that RL on novel environments providing steady improvements after base-model an incredibly bullish signal on future AI improvements. I also believe that the capability increase are transferring to other domains (or at least covers enough domains) that it represents a real rise in intelligence in the human sense (when measured in capabilities - not necessarily innate learning ability)
reply▲WarmWash40 minutes ago
[-] >There is no moat besides that.
Compute.
Google didn't announce $185 billion in capex to do cataloguing and flash cards.
reply▲causalmodels35 minutes ago
[-] Google didn't buy 30% of Anthropic to starve them of compute
reply▲The behind the scenes on deciding when to release these models has got to be pretty insanely stressful if they're coming out within 30 minutes-ish of each other.
reply▲I wonder if their "5.3" was continuously being updated, with regenerated benchmarks with each improvement, and they just stayed ready to release it when claude released
reply▲It’s also functionally not likely without some sort of insider knowledge or coordination
reply▲morleytj40 minutes ago
[-] Could be, could also be situations where things are lined up to launch in the near future and then a mad dash happens upon receiving outside news of another launch happening.
I suppose coincidences happen too but that just seems too unlikely to believe honestly. Some sort of knowledge leakage does seem like the most likely reason.
reply▲dawidg8137 minutes ago
[-] May AI not write the code for me.
May I at least understand what it has "written". AI help is good but don't replace real programmers completely. I'm enough copy pasting code i don't understand. What if one day AI will fall down and there will be no real programmers to write the software. AI for help is good but I don't want AI to write whole files into my project. Then something may broke and I won't know what's broken. I've experienced it many times already. Told the AI to write something for me. The code was not working at all. It was compiling normally but the program was bugged. Or when I was making some bigger project with ChatGPT only, it was mostly working but after a longer time when I was promting more and more things, everything got broken.
reply▲> What if one day AI will fall down and there will be no real programmers to write the software.
What if you want to write something very complex now that most people don't understand? You keep offering more money until someone takes the time to learn it and accomplish it, or you give up.
I mean, there are still people that hammer out horseshoes over a hot fire. You can get anything you're willing to pay money for.
reply▲katspaugh34 minutes ago
[-] Honest question: have you tried evolving your code architecture when adding features instead of just "promting more and more things"?
reply▲> our team was blown away
> by how much Codex was able
> to accelerate its own development
they forgot to add “Can’t wait to see what you do with it”
reply▲Having used codex a fair bit I find it really struggles with … almost anything. However using the equivalent chat gpt model is fantastic. I guess it’s a matter of focus and being provided with a smaller set of code to tackle.
reply▲It's so difficult to compare these models because they're not running the same set of evals. I think literally the only eval variant that was reported for both Opus 4.6 and GPT-5.3-Codex is Terminal-Bench 2.0, with Opus 4.6 at 65.4% and GPT-5.3-Codex at 77.3%. None of the other evals were identical, so the numbers for them are not comparable.
reply▲alexhans49 minutes ago
[-] Isn't the best eval the one you build yourself, for your own use cases and value production?
I encourage people to try. You can even timebox it and come up with some simple things that might look initially insufficient but that discomfort is actually a sign that there's something there. Very similar to moving from not having unit/integration tests for design or regression and starting to have them.
reply▲I usually wait to see what ArtificialAnalysis says for a direct comparison.
reply▲It's better on a benchmark I've never heard of!? That is groundbreaking, I'm switching immediately!
reply▲I also wasn't that familiar with it, but the Opus 4.6 announcement leaned pretty heavily on the TerminalBench 2.0 score to quantify how much of an improvement it was for coding, so it looks pretty bad for Anthropic that OpenAI beat them on that specific benchmark so soundly.
Looking at the Opus model card I see that they also have by far the highest score for a single model on ARC-AGI-2. I wonder why they didn't advertise that.
reply▲input_sh58 minutes ago
[-] No way! Must be a coinkydink, no way OpenAI
knew ahead of time that Anthropic was gonna put a focus on that specific useless benchmark as opposed to all the other useless benchmarks!?
I'm firing 10 people now instead of 5!
reply▲prng202157 minutes ago
[-] Did they post the knowledge cutoff date somewhere
reply▲I think models are smart enough for most of the stuff, these little incremental changes barely matter now. What I want is the model that is fast.
reply▲I'm having a hard time parsing the openai website.
Anyone know if it is possible to use this model with opencode with the plus subscription?
reply▲jdthedisciple57 minutes ago
[-] Gotta love how the game demo's page title is "threejs" – I guess the point was to demo its vibe-coding abilities anyway, but yea..
reply▲__mharrison__51 minutes ago
[-] I never really used Codex (found it to slow) just 5.2, which I going to be an excellent model for my work. This looks like another step up.
This week, I'm all local though, playing with opencode and running qwen3 coder next on my little spark machine. With the way these local models are progressing, I might move all my llm work locally.
reply▲I think codex got much faster for smaller tasks in the last few months. Especially if you turn thinking down to medium.
reply▲davidmurdoch26 minutes ago
[-] I've been using 5.2 the way they're describing the new use case for 5.3 this whole time.
reply▲rustyhancock37 minutes ago
[-] Anyone remember the dot-com era when you would see one provider claim the most miles of fibre and then later that week another would have the title?
reply▲gpt-5.3-codex isn't available on the API yet. From TFA:
> We are working to safely enable API access soon.
reply▲Anthropic mostly had an advantage in speed. It feels like with a 25% increase in speed with Codex 5.3, they are now losing that advantage as well.
reply▲smith701818 minutes ago
[-] I just asked Opus 4.6 to debug a bug in my current changes and it went for 20 minutes before I interrupted it. Take that as you will.
reply▲I find it very, very interesting how they demoed visuals in the form of the “soft SaaS” website and mentioned how it can do user research. Codex has usually lagged behind Claude and Gemini when it comes to UX, so I’m curious to see if 5.3 will take the lead in real world use. Perhaps it’ll be available in Figma Make now?
reply▲I’m hoping they add better IDE integration to track active file and selection. That’s the biggest annoyance I have in working with Codex.
reply▲GPT-5.2-Codex was so cool at price/value rate, hope 5.3 will not ruin the race with claude
reply▲ecshafer52 minutes ago
[-] Funny that this and Opus 4.6 released within minutes of each other. Each showing similar score improvements. Each claiming to be revolutionary.
reply▲That was fast!
I really do wonder whats the chain here. Did Sam see the Opus announcement and DM someone a minute later?
reply▲OpenAI has a whole history of trying to scoop other providers. This was a whole thing for Google launches, where OpenAI regularly launched something just before Google to grab the media attention.
reply▲Some recent examples:
GPT-4o vs. Google I/O (May 2024): OpenAI scheduled its "Spring Update" exactly 24 hours before Google’s biggest event of the year, Google I/O. They launched GPT-4o voice mode.
Sora vs. Gemini 1.5 Pro (Feb 2024): Just two hours after Google announced its breakthrough Gemini 1.5 Pro model, Sam Altman tweeted the reveal of Sora (text-to-video).
ChatGPT Enterprise vs. Google Cloud Next (Aug 2023): As Google began its major conference focused on selling AI to businesses, OpenAI announced ChatGPT Enterprise.
reply▲Tell me that you are hurt without telling me that you are hurt this applies to Sam right now
reply▲bryanhogan27 minutes ago
[-] The most important question: Can it do Svelte now?
reply▲speedgoose10 minutes ago
[-] Today is the best day to rewrite everything in React. You may not enjoy React, but AI agents do. And they are the ones writing the code.
reply▲I am on a max subscription for Claude, and hate the fact that OpenAI have not figured out that $20 => $200 is a big jump. Good luck to them. In terms of model, just last night, Codex 5.2 solved a problem for me which other models were going round and round. Almost same instructions. That said, I still plan to be on $100 Claude (overall value across many tasks, ability to create docs, co-work), and may bump up OpenAI subscription to the next tier should they decide to introduce one. Not going to $200 even with 5.3, unless my company pays for it.
reply▲I guess the jump is on purpose. You can buy Codex credits and also use codex via the API (manual switching required).
reply▲> GPT‑5.3-Codex was co-designed for, trained with, and served on NVIDIA GB200 NVL72 systems. We are grateful to NVIDIA for their partnership.
This is hilarious lol
reply▲How so?
reply▲Its kind of a suck up that more or less confirms the beef stories that were floating around this past week.
In case you missed it. For example:
Nvidia's $100 billion OpenAI deal has seemingly vanished - Ars Technica
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2026/02/five-...
Specifically this paragraph is what I find hilarious.
> According to the report, the issue became apparent in OpenAI’s Codex, an AI code-generation tool. OpenAI staff reportedly attributed some of Codex’s performance limitations to Nvidia’s GPU-based hardware.
reply▲> OpenAI staff reportedly attributed some of Codex’s performance limitations to Nvidia’s GPU-based hardware.
They should design their own hardware, then. Somehow the other companies seem to be able to produce fast-enough models.
reply▲I_am_tiberius1 hour ago
[-] I'd like to know if and how much illegal use of customer prompts are used for training.
reply▲xlbuttplug226 minutes ago
[-] "But we anonymize prompts before training!"
Meanwhile the prompt: Crop this photo of my passport
reply▲Oh yeah that’s in the “These Are The Illegal Things We Did” section 7.4 in the Model Card.
reply▲At first try it solved a problem that 5.2 couldn't previously.
Seems to be slower/thinks longer.
reply▲Any notes on pricing?
reply▲It's not in the API yet - "We are working to safely enable API access soon.", but I assume the rate-limits won't be worse than for 5.2 Codex.
reply▲Ah, "It's ready, but not yet".
reply▲You can just use it outside of the API?
reply▲So can I use this from Opencode? Because Anthropic started to enforce their TOS to kill the Opencode integration
reply▲tfehring55 minutes ago
[-] OpenAI models in general, yes - `opencode auth login`, select OpenAI, then ChatGPT Pro/Plus. I just checked and 5.3-codex isn't available in opencode yet, but I assume it will be soon.
reply▲regularfry47 minutes ago
[-] I've tried opus 4.5 in opencode via the GitHub Copilot API, mostly to see if it works all. I don't think that broke any terms of service? But also I haven't checked how much more expensive I made it for myself over just calling them directly.
reply▲You can use Anthropic models in Opencode, make an api key and you're good to do(you can even use the in house Opencode router, Zen).
What you can't do is pretend opencode is claude code to make use of that specific claude code subscription.
reply▲InsideOutSanta49 minutes ago
[-] Yes, OpenAI said they'd allow usage of their subscriptions in opencode.
reply▲hubraumhugo48 minutes ago
[-] Anybody else not seeing it available in Codex app or CLI yet (with Plus)?
reply▲My codex CLI didn’t notice version bump available, but I manually did pnpm add -g @openai/codex and 5.3 was there after.
reply▲It is absurd to release 5.3-Codex before first releasing 5.3.
Also, there is no reason for OpenAI and Anthropic to be trying to one-up each other's releases on the same day. It is hell for the reader.
reply▲Because Claude Code is stealing the thunder so OpenAI is focusing on coding now.
reply▲whizzter53 minutes ago
[-] Yeah, Claude Code is what everyone is talking about these days and since OpenAI has always been the spending driver being 2nd or 3rd fiddle just isn't acceptable if they're gonna justify it.
reply▲I agree, I was confused about where 5.3 non Codex was. 5.2-Codex disappointed me enough that I won't be giving 5.3 Codex a try, but I'm looking forward to trying 5.3 non Codex with Pi.
reply▲Almost like Anthropic and OpenAI are trying to front run each other
reply▲Stolen from the Opus 4.6 thread:
GPT-5.3-Codex was so good it became my wife!
reply▲Is this me or Sam is being absolute sore loser he is and trying to steal Opus thunder?
reply▲nickthegreek1 hour ago
[-] Why is it loser? He very well could be a sore winner here.
reply▲koakuma-chan50 minutes ago
[-] OpenAI is still the only AI company that has structured outputs. Anthropic now supports JSON schema but you can't specify array length.
reply▲They both are doing this to each other.
BTW, loser is spelled with a single o.
reply▲You could also claim that Anthropic is trying to scoop OpenAI by launching minutes earlier, as OpenAI has done with Google in the past.
For downvoters, you must be naive to think these companies are not surveilling each other through various means.
reply▲I know we just got a reset and a 2× bump with the native app release, but shipping 5.3 with no reset feels mismatched. If I’d known this was coming, I wouldn’t have used up the quota on the previous model.
reply