Yeah 60k is ludicrous, I've barely seeded the context at that point and I don't see context related degradation until well into the 600-700k.

In this thread: People tossing coins independently and fighting over the result they got.

No it's not.

It seems that people have different workflows or repos, or memories or prompts or expectations.

For what it’s worth, as a third party I read your and qsera’s comments as saying the same thing.

Maybe I misread the comment then.

I read it as a models performance being random and observed differences in the opinions are the results of the overinterpretation of the random outcomes.

I think however that some people seem to be always lucky which indicates that it is not random but rather some fixed differences between people and their environments.

> I've barely seeded the context at that point

I think that's issue, rather than 60K being small.

Most of the actual edits/changes I request to codex are solved within 100-150K tokens, beyond 200K I'd definitively try to restart the session as soon as I could as all models are horrible once you get across ~20% of the total context size. And this is while working on +million LOC codebases.

Problem I guess is that there is no solid and concrete evidence of this (to me [and others seemingly] obvious) degradation, but should be easy to prove, yet no one has time to sit down and show it :)

But the likelihood of a model getting minor details wrong once you're above some magical threshold between 15-20%, seems to skyrocket, and I hit that issue sufficient amount of times that now my workflow is trying to prevent that.

what are y'all doing to hit that? Do you just not give it any pointers and let it churn away? What kind of context are you handing off?

I routinely get claude to do things pretty decently and finish up easily in the 4-5 digit range of tokens. It seems to be doing the right kind of thing to not waste its time looking at 1000 files.