GPT-4.1 in the API

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Model naming, versioning, and GPT‑4.5 deprecation

  • Many find the 4.x naming “wild”: 4.1 arriving after 4.5, and 4.5 being deprecated in three months, is seen as confusing and “retconning” the line.
  • Some argue the scheme roughly reflects capability families (4/4o vs o‑series reasoning vs 4.1‑mini/nano), but others say it’s impossible to rank models without documentation.
  • The 4.5 deprecation is attributed by commenters to GPU cost, low usage, and poor cost/latency vs 4.1, despite 4.5 often feeling stronger in creativity and world knowledge.

Benchmarks and SOTA competitiveness

  • OpenAI only compares 4.1 to its own models, which several posters read as a sign they’re no longer clearly ahead.
  • Community benchmarks cited show 4.1 strong but not SOTA in coding: Claude 3.7 and Gemini 2.5 Pro generally score higher on SWE‑bench and Aider Polyglot, often at competitive or lower cost. DeepSeek R1/V3 also feature prominently.
  • Some think 4.1 is likely a distilled 4.5 optimized for efficiency and coding benchmarks.

Coding focus and agentic behavior

  • The release is widely read as a response to Claude 3.7 and Gemini 2.5’s success in coding and agents.
  • GPT‑4.1 mini being roughly 2x faster than 4o at similar reasoning is seen as important for interactive coding tools.
  • Early reports: 4.1 is more “agentic” than 4o but still weaker than Claude/Gemini on large, cross‑cutting refactors; better for small, targeted tasks than complex multi‑scope changes.

Pricing, mini/nano tiers, and context

  • 4.1 is cheaper than 4.5 and 4, with 4.1‑mini and 4.1‑nano targeting Gemini Flash–like price points.
  • Some complain mini got ~2–3× more expensive vs 4o‑mini; others see nano as the real 4o‑mini successor.
  • 1M‑token context across 4.1 models is praised, but several note that beyond ~100–200k tokens most models degrade sharply; announced limits may outstrip practical usefulness.

ChatGPT vs API and routing

  • GPT‑4.1 is API‑only; ChatGPT is said to include “many” of its improvements within 4o‑latest, which some consider vague marketing.
  • Developers value 4.1 as a pinned, stable snapshot, while end‑users express confusion over the growing list of models in the ChatGPT UI and want better automatic routing.

Developer impact and automation debate

  • Some argue front‑end/TypeScript work is “cooked” given tools like v0 and modern models; others report LLMs still fail on non‑trivial refactors and require heavy supervision.
  • There’s concern that labs are explicitly targeting software automation as their key business case, using developer fear as a powerful engagement and marketing driver.

Prompting guidance and eval skepticism

  • OpenAI’s new 4.1 prompting guide draws attention: “persistent” instructions, explicit planning, XML/GDM over JSON for structure, and duplicating instructions at top and bottom. This clashes with prompt‑caching patterns and is seen as more trial‑and‑error empiricism.
  • Benchmarks based on specific tools (e.g., Aider, Qodo) are viewed as useful but also vulnerable to tuning and marketing spin; many insist real‑world testing per use case remains essential.

Overall sentiment

  • Mixed to skeptical: 4.1 is welcomed as cheaper, faster, and better for coding than 4o, but not seen as a clear frontier leap.
  • Several users say they now prefer Gemini 2.5, Claude 3.7, or DeepSeek for many serious tasks, with 4.1 viewed as a strong but no longer dominant option.