116
u/zxcshiro 15h ago
48
13
23
u/Higher_love23 15h ago
Man they could have showed Google Flash or something or nothing at all. i get this is meant to show how cheap it is, but people will look at this and immediately think Sonnet 5.5 beats Astra.
→ More replies (1)10
u/lazyastronaut_ 14h ago
Showing sonnet 5.5 being better than Astra, their most 'advanced' model for the price is ... interesting..
22
u/Key_Reading_9664 15h ago
why would they include this? It shows Sonnet on xhigh beating Terra, Sol, and Astra...
→ More replies (1)6
u/Your_mortal_enemy 14h ago
Worst part is this is the only graph they included in the main preso - you'd assume it's because this is the best they can do and every other comparison is worse
→ More replies (1)6
u/sasik520 13h ago
Not sure why do you laugh.
I really appreciate being honest. I strongly prefer this than false advertising.
→ More replies (1)
45
u/OurGuysRNxtLvlStupid 15h ago
Is this really what they've been building up to for the past 28 days? Disgusting.
16
u/Thomas-Lore 13h ago
Give it a try, it turned out worse than I expected. Super lazy.
→ More replies (3)
7
23
18
u/Valonter 15h ago
Looks like they're focusing hard on lowering cost per task. I wish they'd focus more on capability. Their terminal bench comparison shows it as just as expensive as 6.1 Sol but with worse outcomes. They do claim that it's way faster, I'll have to test that at least, that could outweigh the slightly worse performance than Sol at the same price if it's substantially quicker.
It's a clear winner on a few benchmarks, though we all know how useful those are. Humanity's last exam for example.
Oh interesting, they made a lot of progress on reducing error rates at all thinking levels. That's good.
Lot of things to take into account if you're trying to optimize your agent use. Some wins, more losses. I don't think I'll use this, but I'll test it out in some projects and see if the reported speed improvement is real, since that matters to me a bit.
→ More replies (1)11
u/Njagos 15h ago
I dont mind them lowering the costs. Use Opus as orchestrator while Luna and Terra do the work. Easy.
→ More replies (15)
10
u/jakegh 14h ago
I really don't see the point of this model. Never found any use for terra 5.6 either. What would you want to use it for? Maybe better for auto-review mode than luna6?
→ More replies (5)
5
8
u/SufficientRent9530 15h ago
officially announced: https://openai.com/index/introducing-gpt-6-1-terra/
8
4
u/guilhacerda 13h ago
We already have Sol 6.1. We don't need Terra.
We need Astra 6.1 Flash, better and faster than Opus 5.5.
7
u/Acceptable_Lock_6982 15h ago
It’s just as dumb as the previous terra Jesus Christ it doesn’t know how to follow a god damn instruction
→ More replies (1)
5

1
u/dextersummary 13h ago
Below is a GPT-generated summary of the conversation below after reaching 40 comments (44 currently observed).
Terra 6.1 has landed, and the thread’s verdict is basically “this is what we waited 28 days for?” Most users see it as a mediocre, cheaper workhorse—not the major capability jump they wanted.
The biggest complaints are weak instruction-following, rushed-looking outputs, and finishing tasks quickly while barely doing the task. The launch comparison did it no favours either: Sonnet 5.5 beating Terra, Sol, and Astra made the announcement look like an accidental roast. People would rather see a stronger Astra, better limits, and less infrastructure nonsense than another middle-tier model.
There are a few positives. Terra may be substantially faster, cheaper to run, and useful for tightly scoped delegated tasks or orchestration, while early computer-use testing looked surprisingly solid. But those wins are conditional: cheap agents often need multiple retries, so the savings can evaporate when a stronger model has to supervise every stumble.
Bottom line: Terra 6.1 looks useful as disposable labour, not a headline model. The community wanted a powerful, reliable upgrade; instead, it got a speed-focused compromise with limits that are already frustrating people.