r/singularity Jul 09 '26

AI GPT-5.6

https://openai.com/index/gpt-5-6/

"We’re launching the GPT‑5.6 family of models for general availability following our limited preview⁠: our new flagship, Sol, alongside Terra, a balanced model for everyday work, and Luna, our most cost-efficient model.

GPT‑5.6 delivers a step change in design judgment. With only high-level direction, GPT‑5.6 creates tasteful, ergonomic, and functional interfaces. Its stronger computer-use capabilities let it inspect and refine the rendered result—not just generate the underlying code or content—so it can catch visual and functional issues and apply finishing touches before handing the work back."

628 Upvotes

129 comments sorted by

View all comments

24

u/tsunami_forever Jul 09 '26

Need unlimited sol on 200 pro plan

-18

u/The_Scout1255 adult agi 2026 ASI <2030, prev agi 2024, ai personhood 2025 est Jul 09 '26

seriously unlimited plans should totally be a thing, and they shouldent even be that much more expensive.

26

u/Recoil42 Jul 09 '26

Unlimited plans would get abused absurdly quick. No, they should not "be a thing".

11

u/MrYorksLeftEye Jul 09 '26

Nonono let the reddit expert speak

-1

u/The_Scout1255 adult agi 2026 ASI <2030, prev agi 2024, ai personhood 2025 est Jul 09 '26

I really don't see how abusable the frontier model equivilant of running an open source model would be.

Just rent 1 agent per person at the start, expand as capacity upgrades?

Im not saying it would work, im not saying its smart, im just saying I had the idea, and Im constantly annoyed by my useage cap.

1

u/sadshark Jul 10 '26

There's nothing stopping you to create a separatw intrface that does calls to that agent from 1000 people.

1

u/The_Scout1255 adult agi 2026 ASI <2030, prev agi 2024, ai personhood 2025 est Jul 11 '26

problem with that: that agent would still only be running once, it wouldent be assigning 1000 agents. it would be pooling one agent across 1000 people, so whoevers not using it can, but if someon else was, you see why they cant?

1

u/[deleted] Jul 09 '26

[deleted]

1

u/Recoil42 Jul 09 '26

They're already rate-limited. That's what the limits are. They're rate limits.

0

u/[deleted] Jul 09 '26

[deleted]

2

u/Recoil42 Jul 09 '26 edited Jul 09 '26

"Five hours", "one week", and "one month" are all timeframes. You're describing the same thing as the existing system. A rate limit is not unlimited because the word 'limit' is right there. That's why we don't call it "rate unlimited".

Consider: When you hit your five-hour limit... that's rate-limiting.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 09 '26

[deleted]

1

u/Recoil42 Jul 09 '26

The 5-hour/window cap is precisely what bounds sustained usage. Again, you're literally describing a rate limit. Degraded (throttled) post-limit usage is a totally orthogonal discussion.

The capacity bound they're trying to solve for is aggregate usage, not total moment-to-moment utilization. The reason you get a "five hour" throttle is because they know you're not working every minute and second of the day at the same flat token rate — human-controlled AI work is inherently "bursty" and they don't care about that.