Perhaps if your plans don't have as much detail, or if you're not, for example, having a discussion with a lot of nitty-gritty then it's fine?

The lack of long context is the main reason that I still end up using Anthropic.

The worst is when you need it to hold for example a number of papers in its head, or large and complex materials that it needs full resolution on and your context window ends up being perennially at 16%. You have about five minutes of conversation and it compacts and then you have to wait for it to read that again, get to 16%... and repeat.

372 was not perfect, but it was so much better and a godsend. It turned that 12 to 20% into more like 40%.

I was going to explore paying for Codex since OpenAI seems to be a bit more generous with rate limits, but I'm now not sure - for the stuff I do limited context size would be a dealbreaker - basically lots and lots of documentation and guideline references, code review loops, documentation references and web searches, multi-repo exploration, lots of tool calls and so on.

I might just upgrade to Anthropic's more expensive Max subscription or something to get more subsidized tokens. Even with plan files and the plan mode, it's like a slot machine after compacting the context, sometimes steps or other details just evaporate in thin air, the less of that I need to do the better. It's not that it can't work, it just doesn't work reliably enough not to be annoying.

Luckily DeepSeek V4 Pro, GLM 5.2 and Kimi K3 don't seem to have those limits either - though DS is around Sonnet, GLM 5.2 feels a bit above Sonnet and only K3 only really is in the proper Opus ballpark that's good enough for me to work undisturbed, even if it seems to be slower.

I try to keep it under 200k but my DeepSeek and MiMo sessions can sometimes grow to 350k tokens when I try to squeeze one last iteration I compact.

Can't OpenAI copy DeepSeek K/V cache tech (from published papers) to make it super cheap?

There are attention mechanisms that help to mitigate this, but you can clearly see in the chart that Tibo posted that the attention mechanisms they are using are still scaling quadratically.

This becomes an optimization problem for token t:

min f[cost, quality loss] = compaction cost[t] + compaction quality loss[t] + token cost[t]

Will say that 5.6-Sol is a minor bump in my benchmarks in most areas vs 5.5 but a severe regression in a few specific task focused on rearranging trees, addressing merge conflicts, etc. where the model to accomplish the task does not properly adhere to prompts in a way GPT-5 originally managed, not retaining parts of history in the way prompted despite specific instructions not to as that made the final completion easier…

I am of the conservative and cautious opinion that no model should be able to run destructive tasks at all, I have seen every model do things that make me concerned enough to maintain that opinion and know my evals can’t catch everything. But for 5.6-Sol specifically, I’d caution everyone to reevaluate how you run the model, maybe take a few more precautions you tend to forgo.

It is extremely capable as a reviewer and for extensive tasks, though for the later, the safety net I feel is required to be comfortable limits the utility. The code 5.6-Sol provides also still is a bit harder to parse in reviews.

Release strategy wise, feel it’s have been smarter to release only Luna and Sol now, then Terra a few weeks of posttraining later, I simply cannot see a purpose for it in the current form given how well both Luna and Sol scale up and down respectively with reasoning. Two models from a lab at a time is also the limit I feel one can properly assess at a time.

https://www.reddit.com/r/codex/s/hVv29obfFD

  Before taking a destructive action:
  
  - Make sure the action is clearly within
    the user's request.
  - Resolve the exact targets with
    read-only checks when necessary.
  - Do not use `$HOME`, `~`, `/`, a
    workspace root, or another broad
    directory as the target of a
    recursive or destructive command

Another thing that's preventing me from trying Codex. (the other is @ referencing files not auto including them to the context)

1M should be table stakes for frontier models at this point for programming.

For example: upstream recently changed the effort level hotkeys so M-. would stop at xhigh, not max. If you want max, upstream, you go to the /model menu. I didn't like this change, so I undid it locally. Easy peasy.

I had a /goal running last night for 9.5 hours straight while I slept. When I woke up in the morning it was fully on task and focused.

Write up a detailed design doc. Build a decent AGENTS.md, and write up a good prompt or /goal.

Long context can be more of a curse than a benefit sometimes anyways.