Simon Willison’s Weblog

Newsletter
Atom feed for ted-sanders Random

7 posts tagged “ted-sanders”

2026

In general, LLM performance is incredibly multidimensional. There's no guarantee of a fixed ordering where the model that is best at math is also the model that's best at jokes. Despite that complexity, much of the variation in performance is explained by just a single variable: model size. In general, models that are bigger will (a) be more performant / reliable, (b) cost more per token, and (c) have better recall of esoteric facts. As you note, our models are ordered:

Luna < Terra < Sol < Astra

[...] These days, version number signifies a few things at once: the order of release, the relationship to other releases, and the magnitude of improvement. So something like 6.1 would indicate it was launched after 5.6, may share some similarities to other 6.1 models in terms of training data / personality (which is why it's not 5.7), and isn't a giant enough leap to merit the headlines and expectations that would come with a 7.

— Ted Sanders, explaining OpenAI's model naming conventions

# 28th October 2026, 11:23 pm / ai, openai, generative-ai, llms, gpt, ted-sanders

GPT-6.1 Terra (via) It's always interesting to note which aspects of a new model are emphasized in the release announcement.

In the case of GPT-6.1 Terra, OpenAI went with visual reasoning and computer use:

We’re introducing GPT-6.1 Terra, a fast, efficient model that combines detailed visual reasoning and precise computer use alongside clearer, more natural writing. A significant step up from GPT‑5.6 Terra, it excels at the communication and computer-based tasks that fill the workday, from drafting proposals and interpreting technical drawings to filling out forms and editing videos.

Terra sits in the same position as Sonnet in the Anthropic model collection - not the cheapest or the most expensive, making it harder to decide when to use it.

Computer use is a good example of a task that benefits from a less expensive model, since you might put it to work on automated, repetitive tasks.

OpenAI's Ted Sanders provided some useful advice in a comment on Hacker News:

In the case of GPT-6.1 Terra, I'd say Terra is probably better than Astra and Sol at technical communication, similar on vision and computer use (but much faster!), and a bit worse on most other things. For API developers, it's a nice midrange option if you want something cheaper than Sol but a lot smarter than Luna (especially for vision / computer use / communication). For subscribers, it's not a bombshell release - if you're hitting usage limits, maybe it helps you go a bit further, and if you want clearer communication or faster computer use, it can be a nice option to select.

Here are the pelicans for the different reasoning levels. This pelican for "max" cost 11.3161 cents and took 4 minutes and 11 seconds:

It's a good pelican and a good bicycle - correctly shaped frame, feet n pedals either side of the frame, has the same color scheme as the others in the GPT-6 and GPT-6.1 families.

Here's a new comparison grid showing pelicans for every reasoning level of OpenAI's current frontier lineup: GPT-6 Astra, GPT-6.1 Sol, GPT-6.1 Terra, and GPT-6 Luna.

GPT-6.1 Terra is priced at $1/million input tokens and $5/million output - almost half the price of GPT-5.6 Terra and GPT-6.1 Sol, and around 10x the price of GPT-6 Luna.

# 26th October 2026, 11:53 pm / ai, openai, generative-ai, llms, llm-pricing, pelican-riding-a-bicycle, llm-release, gpt, ted-sanders

2025

[on the cheaper o3] Not quantized. Weights are the same.

If we did change the model, we'd release it as a new model with a new name in the API (e.g., o3-turbo-2025-06-10). It would be very annoying to API customers if we ever silently changed models, so we never do this [1].

[1] chatgpt-4o-latest being an explicit exception

— Ted Sanders, Research Manager, OpenAI

# 11th June 2025, 4:25 am / ai, openai, generative-ai, llms, o3, ted-sanders

Our hypothesis is that o4-mini is a much better model, but we'll wait to hear feedback from developers. Evals only tell part of the story, and we wouldn't want to prematurely deprecate a model that developers continue to find value in. Model behavior is extremely high dimensional, and it's impossible to prevent regression on 100% use cases/prompts, especially if those prompts were originally tuned to the quirks of the older model. But if the majority of developers migrate happily, then it may make sense to deprecate at some future point.

We generally want to give developers as stable as an experience as possible, and not force them to swap models every few months whether they want to or not.

— Ted Sanders, OpenAI, on deprecating o3-mini

# 17th April 2025, 1:07 am / ai, openai, generative-ai, llms, ted-sanders

2024

OpenAI: Introducing Structured Outputs in the API. OpenAI have offered structured outputs for a while now: you could specify "response_format": {"type": "json_object"}} to request a valid JSON object, or you could use the function calling mechanism to request responses that match a specific schema.

Neither of these modes were guaranteed to return valid JSON! In my experience they usually did, but there was always a chance that something could go wrong and the returned code could not match the schema, or even not be valid JSON at all.

Outside of OpenAI techniques like jsonformer and llama.cpp grammars could provide those guarantees against open weights models, by interacting directly with the next-token logic to ensure that only tokens that matched the required schema were selected.

OpenAI credit that work in this announcement, so they're presumably using the same trick. They've provided two new ways to guarantee valid outputs. The first a new "strict": true option for function definitions. The second is a new feature: a "type": "json_schema" option for the "response_format" field which lets you then pass a JSON schema (and another "strict": true flag) to specify your required output.

I've been using the existing "tools" mechanism for exactly this already in my datasette-extract plugin - defining a function that I have no intention of executing just to get structured data out of the API in the shape that I want.

Why isn't "strict": true by default? Here's OpenAI's Ted Sanders:

We didn't cover this in the announcement post, but there are a few reasons:

  • The first request with each JSON schema will be slow, as we need to preprocess the JSON schema into a context-free grammar. If you don't want that latency hit (e.g., you're prototyping, or have a use case that uses variable one-off schemas), then you might prefer "strict": false
  • You might have a schema that isn't covered by our subset of JSON schema. (To keep performance fast, we don't support some more complex/long-tail features.)
  • In JSON mode and Structured Outputs, failures are rarer but more catastrophic. If the model gets too confused, it can get stuck in loops where it just prints technically valid output forever without ever closing the object. In these cases, you can end up waiting a minute for the request to hit the max_token limit, and you also have to pay for all those useless tokens. So if you have a really tricky schema, and you'd rather get frequent failures back quickly instead of infrequent failures back slowly, you might also want "strict": false

But in 99% of cases, you'll want "strict": true.

More from Ted on how the new mode differs from function calling:

Under the hood, it's quite similar to function calling. A few differences:

  • Structured Outputs is a bit more straightforward. e.g., you don't have to pretend you're writing a function where the second arg could be a two-page report to the user, and then pretend the "function" was called successfully by returning {"success": true}
  • Having two interfaces lets us teach the model different default behaviors and styles, depending on which you use
  • Another difference is that our current implementation of function calling can return both a text reply plus a function call (e.g., "Let me look up that flight for you"), whereas Structured Outputs will only return the JSON

The official openai-python library also added structured output support this morning, based on Pydantic and looking very similar to the Instructor library (also credited as providing inspiration in their announcement).

There are some key limitations on the new structured output mode, described in the documentation. Only a subset of JSON schema is supported, and most notably the "additionalProperties": false property must be set on all objects and all object keys must be listed in "required" - no optional keys are allowed.

Another interesting new feature: if the model denies a request on safety grounds a new refusal message will be returned:

{
  "message": {
    "role": "assistant",
    "refusal": "I'm sorry, I cannot assist with that request."
  }
}

Finally, tucked away at the bottom of this announcement is a significant new model release with a major price cut:

By switching to the new gpt-4o-2024-08-06, developers save 50% on inputs ($2.50/1M input tokens) and 33% on outputs ($10.00/1M output tokens) compared to gpt-4o-2024-05-13.

This new model also supports 16,384 output tokens, up from 4,096.

The price change is particularly notable because GPT-4o-mini, the much cheaper alternative to GPT-4o, prices image inputs at the same price as GPT-4o. This new model cuts that by half (confirmed here), making gpt-4o-2024-08-06 the new cheapest model from OpenAI for handling image inputs.

# 6th August 2024, 6:32 pm / json, ai, openai, generative-ai, llms, structured-extraction, pydantic, ted-sanders

[On release notes] in our partial defense, training these models can be more discovery than invention. often we don't exactly know what will come out.

we've long wanted to do release notes that describe each model's differences, but we also don't want to give false confidence with a shallow story.

— Ted Sanders, OpenAI

# 3rd August 2024, 8:09 pm / ai, openai, generative-ai, llms, ted-sanders

2023

Although fine-tuning can feel like the more natural option—training on data is how GPT learned all of its other knowledge, after all—we generally do not recommend it as a way to teach the model knowledge. Fine-tuning is better suited to teaching specialized tasks or styles, and is less reliable for factual recall. [...] In contrast, message inputs are like short-term memory. When you insert knowledge into a message, it's like taking an exam with open notes. With notes in hand, the model is more likely to arrive at correct answers.

— Ted Sanders, OpenAI

# 15th April 2023, 1:44 pm / ai, gpt-3, openai, prompt-engineering, generative-ai, gpt-4, llms, fine-tuning, gpt, ted-sanders