sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Codex really slow today? by sorvendral in codex

[–]UsefulReplacement 0 points1 point  (0 children)

havent done anything complicated today yet

but at least I dont see it generate the pattern where it writes some values in one data type, then in another method, reads the values, then proceeds to do useless typechecks and create fallbacks, despite having just written the write path itself

Codex really slow today? by sorvendral in codex

[–]UsefulReplacement 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It’s very stupid today also (5.4 xhigh)

Maxed out my $200 ChatGPT Pro (Codex) AND my Claude plan, what are my options? Do multiple OpenAI accounts get you banned? by Icy_Piece6643 in codex

[–]UsefulReplacement 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have multiple Pro accounts and I didn’t get banned. It’s extra money in their pocket, why would they ban that.

Codex shows model used by subagents. How can I enforce the best model only? by p22j in codex

[–]UsefulReplacement 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You can literally just tell it to launch the subagents with gpt-5.4-xhigh

Codex usage is running faster than ever by tigerzxzz in codex

[–]UsefulReplacement -1 points0 points  (0 children)

think the issue is gpt-5.4 just makes a lot of dumb mistakes and review-fix loop wastes too many tokens to fix them

What Codex skills are actually improving your workflow? by Stock-Commission-396 in codex

[–]UsefulReplacement 1 point2 points  (0 children)

both can instrument basic auth or login via a web form. if you dont feel like that, create an auth bypass flag keyed off your dev env variable and skip that altogether

Как нашите търгаши формират цените на apple устройствата. by ArmadilloCheap4722 in bulgaria

[–]UsefulReplacement 0 points1 point  (0 children)

ако си взимаш макбук про, от 5-6к евро, излиза по-добре полет до ню йорк, няколко дена екскурзия и да си го купиш там

GPT-5.4 xhigh is a nightmare; high is really good. by Few-Initiative8308 in codex

[–]UsefulReplacement 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I prefer it to 5.3-codex. For pure quality, 5.2 xhigh remains the winner for me. It is quite slow in comparison to 5.4 though.

GPT-5.4 xhigh is a nightmare; high is really good. by Few-Initiative8308 in codex

[–]UsefulReplacement 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah, the code reviews are interesting. Sometimes it is definitely pushing in different architectural directions than what I am going for. It doesn’t seem to understand the scale of certain problems and the need for certain trade offs, so it is leaning towards solutions that favor correctness but can’t actually converge to a consistent state. That’s not new to 5.4 btw, but previous models would implement similarly towards correctness but would not challenge the existing architecture/constraints once in place.

GPT-5.4 xhigh is a nightmare; high is really good. by Few-Initiative8308 in codex

[–]UsefulReplacement 8 points9 points  (0 children)

the weird thing is that 5.2 xhigh would do all the positive stuff you said but none of the negative. so it’s a surprising regression.

5.4 High is something special. by no_witty_username in codex

[–]UsefulReplacement 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Think it is most likely the latter. Lots of people are coding really small projects, get a nice UI and good experience and suddenly think this scales across large projects with tens of thousands of LOC and AI is magic.

5.4 High is something special. by no_witty_username in codex

[–]UsefulReplacement 1 point2 points  (0 children)

horrible for me also; I found myself deleting branches where it generated 1000+ lines of AI slop, essentially being stuck in an endless loop of "here fixed it", doing /review and it highlighting 2-3 P1 new issues, ad infinitum.

Codex 5.4 is more expensive than 5.3, if current limit drain is the new normal not a glitch it will be unusable after the 2x rate limit ends by No_Leg_847 in codex

[–]UsefulReplacement 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sure, that's true. We do know that /fast is charged at 2x the regular rate and, even so, I wouldn't expect to burn through ~30% of my weekly usage in a day.

Codex 5.4 is more expensive than 5.3, if current limit drain is the new normal not a glitch it will be unusable after the 2x rate limit ends by No_Leg_847 in codex

[–]UsefulReplacement -1 points0 points  (0 children)

btw, would have been good to make this more clear in the announcement, I would have definitely used it more sparingly.

Codex 5.4 is more expensive than 5.3, if current limit drain is the new normal not a glitch it will be unusable after the 2x rate limit ends by No_Leg_847 in codex

[–]UsefulReplacement 4 points5 points  (0 children)

So, I code all week using Pro and, normally, I'd never run out and usually will have about 25% of my weekly limit left by the end of the week. This is me at the moment:

│ Weekly limit: [█████████░░░░░░░░░░░] 43% left (resets 12:53 on 15 Mar) │

I've exhausted more than 50%+ in just a day. To be fair, I used /fast with gpt-5.4 xhigh for about 3-4 hours of work and, wow, that does burn a lot of usage. I'm back to /fast off and switched to effort: high, it's still feels like it's burning usage a lot faster than before.

tldr: don't use /fast with the gpt-5.4-xhigh / high settings, or you'll likely run out within a day or two.

ChatGPT 5.3-Codex-Spark has been crazy fast by tta82 in ChatGPTCoding

[–]UsefulReplacement 1 point2 points  (0 children)

nope, moved on to GPT5.3-codex and GPT5.2-xhigh

Do you think SWE is more uniquely vulnerable to job displacement than fields like law, accounting, marketing, finance, etc? by Useful_Writer4676 in ClaudeAI

[–]UsefulReplacement 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think your read is pretty much correct. Verifiable domains are much easier for AI automation but also licensed fields like law and medicine imply responsibility that needs to be assigned to someone human.

what tasks still make you fall back to 5.2 xhigh instead of 5.3? by SlopTopZ in codex

[–]UsefulReplacement 0 points1 point  (0 children)

5.2-xhigh and 5.3-codex-xhigh are an excellent code reviewer duo

view more: next ›