That's hilarious. Does OpenAI even know this doesn't work?

OpenAI now has three price points: GPT 5.1, GPT 5.2 and now GPT 5.4. There version numbers jump across different model lines with codex at 5.3, what they now call instant also at 5.3.

Anthropic are really the only ones who managed to get this under control: Three models, priced at three different levels. New models are immediately available everywhere.

Google essentially only has Preview models! The last GA is 2.5. As a developer, I can either use an outdated model or have zero insurances that the model doesn't get discontinued within weeks.

Also per pricing, GPT-5.4 ($2.50/M input, $15/M output) is much cheaper than Opus 4.6 ($5/M input, $25/M output) and Opus has a penalty for its beta >200k context window.

I am skeptical whether the 1M context window will provide material gains as current Codex/Opus show weaknesses as its context window is mostly full, but we'll see.

Per updated docs (https://developers.openai.com/api/docs/guides/latest-model), it supercedes GPT-5.3-Codex, which is an interesting move.

It might be my AGENTS.md requiring clearer, simpler language, but at least 5.4's doing a good job of following the guidelines. 5.3-Codex wasn't so great at simple, clear writing.

We got:

- GPT-5.1

- GPT-5.2 Thinking

- GPT-5.3 (codex)

- GPT-5.3 Instant

- GPT-5.4 Thinking

- GPT-5.4 Pro

Who’s to blame for this ridiculous path they are taking? I’m so glad I am not a Chat user, because this adds so much unnecessary cognitive load.

The good news here is the support for 1M context window, finally it has caught up to Gemini.

>Today, we’re releasing GPT‑5.4 in ChatGPT (as GPT‑5.4 Thinking),

>Note that there is not a model named GPT‑5.3 Thinking

They held out for eight months without a confusing numbering scheme :)

It's very similar to "Battle Brothers", and the fact that RPG games require art assets, AI for enemy moves, and a host of other logical systems makes it all the more impressive.

They show an example of 5.4 clicking around in Gmail to send an email.

I still think this is the wrong interface to be interacting with the internet. Why not use Gmail APIs? No need to do any screenshot interpretation or coordinate-based clicking.

GPT-5.4 extra high scores 94.0 (GPT-5.2 extra high scored 88.6).

GPT-5.4 medium scores 92.0 (GPT-5.2 medium scored 71.4).

GPT-5.4 no reasoning scores 32.8 (GPT-5.2 no reasoning scored 28.1).

> Theme park simulation game made with GPT‑5.4 from a single lightly specified prompt, using Playwright Interactive for browser playtesting and image generation for the isometric asset set.

Is "Playwright Interactive" a skill that takes screenshots in a tight loop with code changes, or is there more to it?

In practice, if I buy $200/mo codex, can I basically run 3 codex instances simultaneously in tmux, like I can with claude code pro max, all day every day, without hitting limits?

This is on the edge of what the frontier models can do. For 5.4, the result is better than 5.3-Codex and Opus 4.6. (Edit: nowhere near the RPG game from their blog post, which was presumably much more specced out and used better engineering setup).

I also tested it with a non-trivial task I had to do on an existing legacy codebase, and it breezed through a task that Claude Code with Opus 4.6 was struggling with.

I don't know when Anthropic will fire back with their own update, but until then I'll spend a bit more time with Codex CLI and GPT 5.4.

gpt-5.4

Input: $2.50 /M tokens

Cached: $0.25 /M tokens

Output: $15 /M tokens

---

gpt-5.4-pro

Input: $30 /M tokens

Output: $180 /M tokens

Wtf

This was definitely missing before, and a frustrating difference when switching between ChatGPT and Codex. Great addition.

I imagine they added a feature or two, and the router will continue to give people 70B parameter-like responses when they dont ask for math or coding questions.

Not sure if this is more concerning for the test time compute paradigm or the underlying model itself.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something though? I'm assuming 5.4 and 5.4 Thinking are the same underlying model and that's not just marketing.

https://www.svgviewer.dev/s/gAa69yQd

Not the best pelican compared to gemini 3.1 pro, but I am sure with coding or excel does remarkably better given those are part of its measured benchmarks.

A couple months later:

"We are deprecating the older model."

This becomes increasingly less clear to me, because the more interesting work will be the agent going off for 30mins+ on high / extra high (it's mostly one of the two), and that's a long time to wait and an unfeasible amount of code to a/b

GPT is not even close yo Claude in terms of responding to BS.

I'd believe it on those specific tasks. Near-universal adoption in software still hasn't moved DORA metrics. The model gets better every release. The output doesn't follow. Just had a closer look on those productivity metrics this week: https://philippdubach.com/posts/93-of-developers-use-ai-codi...

Interesting, the "Health" category seems to report worse performance compared to 5.2.

numerusformassistant to=functions.ReadFile մեկնաբանություն 天天爱彩票网站json {"path":

In terms of writing and research even Gemini, with a good prompt, is close to useable. That's likely not a differentiator.

Not including the Chinese models is also obviously done to make it appear like they aren't as cooked as they really are.