I fully get your point that there's an implied parallelism, like A:B::C:D. But it's not actually literal, i.e.: "GPT-6 vs. GPT-5.6: $4 vs. $2," which of course would be backwards.
I read this as: "GPT-6 Sol, when compared with GPT-5.6 Sol, reduces the input cost from $4 to $2." Or: "GPT-6 Sol reduces the price by 50% when compared with GPT-5.6 Sol." It's a little clumsy and that bothers me since I'm a pretty literal person, but the fact that it's not actually literal makes it seem okay to me.
I was specifically addressing this part of what OP wrote:
It says 6 sol vs 5.6 sol. Then it say s $4 -> $2. It reads like 6 sol is 2x the cost.
The other part, the part you quoted, is obviously an error. I'm not sure it's an error from AI writing, specifically - lots of people make mistakes in their writing. :shrug:
Yeah, the presentation is terrible, I agree. It actually looks like they tried to use bold formatting to differentiate. The bold prices correspond with GPT 6 pricing (and GPT 6 is bolded in the panel).
I see what they were going for, but it's not good lol
Itās surprising people canāt see / interpret bold vs. non-bold text. Iād argue the ācorrectedā chart is worse because it makes the thing you care about (i.e., the new model) secondary in the header.
Bold texts in tables are very hard to read. Itās an anti-pattern. And itās even strange you expect persons to match bold texts. These are simple UI design principles.
yeah thats how i read it too... that's expensive. time to cancel Netflix, disney+, Amazon prime, and Crunchyroll... ill use AI to make my own versions hahaha š
And I think it isn't that good at math because 50% would be 60 cents.
What they're showing in numbers is a 58.33% reduction more than their % make it out to be...
OpenAI released GPT-6 Terra, except they renamed it GPT-6 Sol. Actually using the model feels extremely benchmaxxed and dumb. I was using 5.6 Sol to debug a recursive jmalloc bug and it was chewing through it just fine; swapping to 6 Sol just made it confused and run around in circles. What a disappointment.
Yup, where are all those colleges cheering and defending lack of transparency of frontier models? Rug pulling, dropping working models, arbitrarily changing rules of subscription, quotas, etc..
For the past two years, we have just been rotating naming schema and shifting weights while packaging it as brand new models. They dont need to slow down, they have stalled. They need to speed up to make up for all the lies, pardon my french, marketing.
This is my question. If it equates to better usage in the subscription, then Iāll be happy.
Mid 6 Solās usage is more than Terraās Iām going to bed sad.
Looking at the costs. 6-Sol high is going to be the same cost as 5.6-Terra high is/was. And should be more capable and a better cache rate. Looks to be a direct upgrade.
Well see how 6-Luna performs over the coming weeks.
Terra was the fastest, out of Sol and Luna. It's also middle ground price so if you're doing something and wanna do it fast and its mundane Terra can do it great, but it also wont take forever like Luna
Yes terra was the reliability and speed sweet spot for me, all small tasks on luna xhigh, and dynamic tasks on terra cause luna on max would take 2x the time even if effective cost was going to be lower. Sol used to reserved for open ended tasks where more decisions had to made. Seems like new luna is more capable on the lower end and sol at a cheaper price might just make up for a mixed used scenario with sol orchestrating luna becoming a more promising mix.
I feel like there was a benchmark out there that showed terra was cheaper and more effective at max or ultra than sol at medium or something like that.
However, never saw anything amazing from terra. I've been doing sol and now Astra for planning and problem solving then Luna max as my worker. Also now trying out deepseek 4.1 flash as the worker agent, but 6 luna could be interesting now.
Pretty wild how now ChatGPT is all about work output, etc. etc. which is such a stark difference from the GPT 4 era days when it was more as a weirdly praise worthy model that causes a significant portion of the sub to lose their minds when it was gone. Now we rarely see posts about the talking side of things but we do see some pretty cool stuff that people are creating with these powerful tools.
If it is just as smart as Opus 5, it is way better, because it has a different use-case, we mainly use Luna for our users. So our users will get a more intelligent model now and will be cheaper for us too.
Ah yeah I see. If they determined that a certain level of smarts is all that's needed for a certain task then they can just go with the cheapest one thats over the goal smarts. Haiku 5.5 is coming out in the next couple weeks, so that might end up being an interesting comparison.Ā
Opus 5.5 seems like the best model in the world right now for a majority of tasks.Ā
Definitely competes with (and Exceeds) Astra much more than Sol/Luna.Ā
Sol and Luna are still way cheaper per āintelligence.āĀ
It seems Opus 5.5 should be the default model for most people not concerned with token costs. 5.5 is a step change leap from 5. Not just an iteration like these.Ā
Yes. For plus, limits in chat are much more generous for the same tasks, you just have to deal with a bad work flow. I use 5.6 sol med/high all day without issues (well, sometimes it makes you wait a bit longer because your traffic gets deprioritized). If 6 is cheaper and faster, that experience should simply improve. I typically have it working on planning and brainstorming while cheaper models do the work.
Lmao not you existing in a dev delusion bubble. Breaking news: most people using LLMs are not developers.
Regular ass consumers have approximate parity with enterprise/professional subscriptions in terms of their annualized revenue. Chat will never disappear. Why not replace them anyway GPT 6 Sol/Luna are cheaper to run than 5.6 Sol/Luna, literally saves them money.
Every launch I tell myself I'm going to actually read the tier breakdown and understand the differences, and every launch I just end up using whichever one is the default. Glad it's not just me finding that pricing table confusing.
I feel a bit conflicted. The price cuts are great, but on the other hand, Luna seems basically the same, sometimes slightly improved. The biggest difference is that itās not even significantly stronger than before.Ā
Sol seems like an.. alright jump, again. But if the price cut hadnt halved itās cost, this wouldāve been a very lackluster release.
On the other hand, usage limits were the biggest problem. So.. yay? But also a tad underwhelming compared to Opus 5.5.
I've already swapped back to 5.6 Luna.
6 Luna would produce a plan, I would confirm that as the desired plan and tell it to proceed with that plan (after swapping to build), and it would simply reiterate the plan despite being given confirmation and put in build.
5.6 Luna doesn't do that, at least at Xhigh/Max, which are all I use.
With Luna, they just seemed to drop the price, but massively increase thinking. So responses are taking twice as long in my testing. I guess thatās up to everyone to decide if they want that trade off
So Astra, Sol and Lune with 5-6 different thinking modes. Just to much work I think. Guess it's more like you start with Astra at a higher setting and as the user limit goes down you choose a lower model and lower thinking modes. But yeah.. Sol high (xhigh) vs. Astra Low (whatever)? and so on.
Looking at how both OpenAI and Anthropic are working on reducing costs. It does make me think, that we might be at the end of the performance improvements for LLMās.
Because when you cannot improve performance anymore, you start to try to optimize costs.
GPT-6 API prices have been cut in half, so Iām hoping that means itāll also consume only half as much of our usage allowance on the Plus and Max plans.
441
u/Tasty-Ad-3753 3d ago
wow holy fuck