文 | 字母AI
在Anthropic正式公开提交IPO招股书的同一天，OpenAI发布了新模型GPT-6.1 Terra。
这是Terra系列时隔三个多月的首次更新，距离9月29日GPT-6.1 Sol发布也已经过去了27天。OpenAI在官方宣传中着重强调：“以更低的价格，提供快速且强大的电脑操作能力。”
但网友们似乎并不买账。
“老兄，我们需要的是比Opus 5.5更强的模型。没人关心它是不是更快、更便宜。”
这位网友毫不客气地表示，自己已经几乎不再使用Codex订阅服务，因为它实在没什么用处了。
过去一段时间，Anthropic凭借Claude Opus 5.5在编程等领域赢得了大量关注。不少用户都在期待OpenAI拿出一款足以正面较量的强大模型，结果等来的却是一款主打性价比的中档模型。
只能说，很难不让人失望。
“中规中矩”
GPT-6.1 Terra的API价格为每百万输入Token 1美元、缓存输入Token 0.05美元、输出Token 5美元，较上一代输入和输出价格分别下降50%和约58%，且只有GPT-6.1 Sol的一半。
根据OpenAI公布的数据，Terra在编程、视觉理解和电脑操作等方面，较上一代都有明显提升。
在衡量AI编程Agent能力的Terminal-Bench 4.0测试中，Terra的任务完成率从上一代的21.5%提升至50.3%。
在Agents' Last Exam测试中，Terra则拿到了60.0%的成绩，接近Claude Opus 5.5的63.2%。
OpenAI特别强调，在这项电脑操作测试的最高推理档位下，Terra能够以Opus 5.5约九分之一的任务成本，取得接近的成绩。
但在第三方评测那边，6.1 Terra的表现并不算出挑。
根据独立AI评测机构Artificial Analysis的测试，在最高推理档位下，Terra的智能指数为48分，比上一代提高6分，但仍低于GPT-6.1 Sol的52分，更比不上Claude Opus 5.5的58分。
相对来讲，成本效率的提升较为明显。
Artificial Analysis发现，在其综合智能评测中，Terra完成单个任务的平均成本从1.40美元下降至0.40美元，降幅超过70%。
硬要说的话，6.1 Terra大概就是个“中不溜”模型。价格不高不低，能力不好不差，相比上一代确实有进步。但它连OpenAI自家的Sol都没超过，更谈不上追平Opus 5.5。
对于需要低成本调用模型的开发者来说，这可能算个好消息。
但对那些等待OpenAI拿出下一款最强模型的用户来说，恐怕只能得到一种评价：就这？
目前，Terra已通过API开放，Plus、Pro、Enterprise和Edu用户也可以在ChatGPT Work和Codex中使用。但暂时无法在普通Chat对话中调用。
跑分之外
GPT-6.1 Terra也被计入了OpenAI连续28天更新计划，成为这段时间发布的首款新模型。
Tibo表示，这是OpenAI首款在写作、模型个性以及对用户需求的细腻理解方面取得显著进步的模型。
他还强调，新模型在各方面都有不错的表现，尤其擅长电脑操作，在API和订阅服务中，相比GPT-6.1 Sol还能提供两倍的使用量。
不过，对于Tibo特别强调的写作、个性和细腻理解能力，目前还缺少足够的公开证据。
OpenAI的官方发布稿确实宣称，Terra能够生成更清晰、更自然的文字，但并未提供针对上述三项能力的专项对比测试，也没有展示足以证明其显著进步的评测结果。
究竟是否真的更会写作、更懂用户，恐怕还得等实际使用后的反馈。
电脑操作方面的改进相对直观，在宣传片里，OpenAI展示了Terra根据图片创建3D模型的能力。
不过，宣传片毕竟是宣传片。
OpenAI在官方发布稿中还提到，Terra参与的基准测试包括根据建筑图纸创建3D模型、逐帧检查动画并整理时间码等任务。按照官方的产品定位，它也适合填写表单、匹配商品照片与目录条目等日常工作。
奥特曼则在X上表示：“GPT-6.1 Terra来了！它擅长很多事情，但我们尤其期待电脑操作的这个新时代。”
除了执行任务，OpenAI还强调了模型可靠性的改进。
在官方专门设计的高难度事实性测试中，低推理档位下，Terra的事实错误率从上一代的53.6%下降至16.7%；最高推理档位下，错误率进一步降至4.3%。
当然，这些数字来自OpenAI的内部测试。
网友：理解不了
相比OpenAI官方的兴奋，网友们的态度就没那么客气了。
“有什么理由选择这个，而不是Opus 5.5？”
有网友直接质问OpenAI，并表示他们真正需要的是一款比GPT-6 Astra更强的前沿模型。
还有网友质疑官方为何没有提供更多Benchmark，以前不都是直接甩一张表出来么。
另外，有网友表示自己已经体验了新模型，电脑操作能力甚至不如6.1 Sol，速度也没有宣传中那么快。
“我们需要的是更出色的产品，而不是这种毫无用处的东西。”
类似的不满也出现在Reddit社区。
在r/codex，一位网友直接发帖，将这次发布形容为“简直是在给Claude打广告”。
也有人觉得Terra的尴尬之处在于定位。一位网友指出，Terra的API价格是Luna的10倍。
如果追求最低成本，可以使用Luna；如果需要更强的模型，选择Sol似乎更加合理。
甚至连OpenAI的命名方式也遭到了吐槽。由于各档模型的发布时间并不统一，而且不同模型在部分任务上的表现会出现交叉，一些用户已经搞不清Terra、Sol和Astra之间究竟应该怎么选。
面对这些质疑，OpenAI研究员Ted Sanders也在Hacker News上作出了解释。他表示，Terra可能在技术交流方面优于Sol和Astra，在视觉理解与电脑操作方面表现接近，同时速度更快，但在其他大多数任务中稍逊一筹。
对于订阅用户，他也承认：“这并不是一次重磅发布。”
当然，社区里也有用户肯定Terra的成本效率，认为能够以低得多的成本完成接近旗舰模型水平的任务，本身就具有价值。
只不过，比起这个“中不溜”的Terra，已经有不少人开始等下一款Astra……以及对家的Fable 5.5了。
本文由 AI宝库自动抓取并翻译，版权归原作者所有；如需查看原文请点下方链接。
Letter AI
On the same day that Anthropic officially and publicly submitted the IPO book, OpenAIpublish introduced a new model GPT-6.1 Terra.
This is the first update of the Terra series in more than three months, and 27 days have passed since 29 September, when GPT-61 Solpublish was added. Open AI, in its official campaign, highlighted: “Providing faster and more powerful computer operations at lower prices”.
But the Internet doesn't seem to buy.
"Man, what we need is a stronger model than Opus 5.5. Nobody cares if it's faster and cheaper."
The netizens have kindly stated that they have virtually stopped using the Cordex subscription service because it is of no use.
During the past period, Anthropic has attracted considerable attention in areas such as programming, with Claude Opus 5.5. Many users are expecting Open AI to produce a strong LLM that is strong enough to make a positive difference, and the result is a medium-value-for-money model.
It's hard not to be disappointed, to say the least.
"Integrity"
GPT-6.1 Terra ' s API price is US$ 1 per million for Token, US$ 0.05 for cache for Token, US$ 5 for output, a 50 per cent and about 58 per cent decrease from the previous generation for input and output, respectively, and only half of GPT-61 Sol.
According to the data published by Open AI, Terra is significantly higher than previous generations in terms of programming, visual understanding and computer operations.
Terra's mission completion rate increased from 21.5 per cent in the previous generation to 50.3 per cent in the Terminal-Bench 4.0 test, which measured the capability of AI programming Agent.
In the Agents' Last Exam test, Terra obtained 60.0 per cent of the results, close to 63.2 per cent of Claude Opus 5.5.
In particular, Open AI stressed that under the highest reasoning slot of this computer operation test, Terra was able to achieve close results at around one ninth of the task cost of the Opus 5.5.
But on the other side of the third-party assessment, 6.1 Terra's performance is not an option.
According to tests conducted by the independent AI rating agency Artificial Analysis, in the highest level of reasoning, Terra ' s intelligence index was 48 points, an increase of six points over the previous generation, but still below 52 points in GPT-6.1 Sol and less than 58 points in Claude Opus 5.5.
In relative terms, the increase in cost efficiency has been more pronounced.
Artificial Analysis found that, in its comprehensive intelligence assessment, Terra ' s average cost of completing a single mission fell from US$ 1.40 to US$ 0.40, a decrease of over 70 per cent.
In hard to say, 6.1 Terra is probably a "sliding" model. Prices are low, capacity is not bad, and there has been progress compared to previous generations. But it didn't even exceed Open AI's home-based Sol, let alone catch up with Opus 5.5.
This may be good news for developers who need low-cost call models.
But for those who wait for Open AI to come up with the next strongest model, there is only one evaluation: is that all?
Currently, Terra is open through API and can also be used by users of Plus, Pro, Enterprise and Edu in ChatGPT Work and Codex. However, it is not possible for the time being to call in the regular Chat dialogue.
Out of range.
GPT-6.1 Terra was also included in the Open AI 28-day renewal plan as the first new model of publish for this period.
Tibo states that this is a model of significant progress in the first paragraph of Open AI in terms of writing, model personality and a fine understanding of user needs.
He also stressed that the new model was performing well in all areas, especially in computer operations, and that in API and subscription services, it provided twice as much use as GPT-61 Sol.
However, there is a lack of sufficient public evidence of the writing, personality and detailed understanding that Tibo places particular emphasis on.
The official publish version of Open AI did claim that Terra could produce clearer and more natural language, but did not provide a specific comparative test for the three capabilities mentioned above, nor did it show the results of the evaluation sufficient to demonstrate significant progress.
Whether or not it is really better to write and to know users will probably have to wait for feedback after actual use.
Improvements in computer operations are relatively intuitive, and in the promotional film Open AI shows Terra ' s ability to create a 3D model based on pictures.
After all, however, it is a promotional film.
In the official publish version, Open AI also mentioned that Terra ' s participation in the baseline tests included the creation of a 3D model based on building drawings, a frame-by-frame examination of animations and the organization of time codes. In accordance with official product positioning, it is also suitable for daily work such as filling out forms, matching commodity photographs and catalogue entries.
On X, Otman says, "GPT-61 Terra is here! It's good at a lot of things, but we're particularly looking forward to this new era of computer operations."
In addition to its mandate, Open AI highlighted improvements in model reliability.
In the highly difficult factual tests officially designed, the factual error rate in Terra fell from 53.6 per cent to 16.7 per cent in the low-debate slot; it fell further to 4.3 per cent in the highest-debate slot.
Of course, these figures come from the internal tests of Open AI.
Netizen: I don't understand.
The attitude of netizens is less than that of Open AI.
"What makes you choose this instead of Opus 5.5?"
Internet users directly questioned Open AI and said they really needed a more advanced model than GPT-6 Astra.
There are also netizens who question why the authorities did not provide more Benchmark, and who used to throw a watch directly.
In addition, Internet users have indicated that they have experienced new models, that computer operations are not even as fast as 6.1 Sol and that they are not as fast as publicity.
“What we need is a better product, not this useless thing.”
Similar grievances occurred in the Reddit community.
In r/codex, a member of the Internet sent a direct post describing this time publish as “a mere ad for Claude”.
Others feel that Terra's embarrassment lies in positioning. One netizens noted that Terra ' s API price was 10 times that of Luna.
If the lowest cost is sought, Luna could be used; if a stronger model is needed, Sol seems to be more rational.
Even Open AI's name has been criticized. Since the publish time of the slotting models is not uniform and the performance of the different models cross-checks on some tasks, some users are already confused as to what should be chosen between Terra, Sol and Astra.
In response to these challenges, the Open AI researcher Ted Sanders also explained on Hacker News. He indicated that Terra might be better than Sol and Astra in terms of technical exchange, close to visual understanding and computer operations at a faster pace, but somewhat less so in most other missions.
For subscriptions, he also admitted: “This is not a single pound publish.”
Of course, there are users in the community who affirm that Terra is cost-effective and that it is valuable in itself to be able to accomplish tasks close to flagship model levels at much lower cost.
It's just that a lot of people have started waiting for the next Astra... and the family's Fable 5.5, compared to Terra.
Auto-fetched and translated by AI Gem Box. All rights belong to the original author.