i don't get. yes, if you just prompt it "make me an app" you learn nothing but you probably also end up with an app that is crap as best.
I you instead "promote" yourself to architect or lead dev and you steer the ai as it it a team of junior dev you must manage you can learn a lot. not only will you have deep architecture discussion with ai where you, together, explore various approaches and ways to do things.
an if you do spec driven ai development where you write the specs you will end up with an app that resemble the way you prefer apps to be written.
Just because ai can cook something up in no time doesn't exclude you from being involved.
I like that it default to view or more precisely a WYSIWYG experience. I wish vs code did the same. I am just no sure that notepad is the right tool for this. It serves as such a important tool to stripping formatting and working with plain text. We are not far away from loosing 30 years of that trust. One little bug away. They should have used wordpad for this.
Andrej got famous because of his educational content. He's a smart dude but his research wasn't incredibly unique amongst his cohort at Stanford. He created publicly available educational content around ML that was high quality and got hugely popular. This is what made him a huge name in ML, which he then successfully leveraged into positions of substantial authority in his post-grad career.
He is a very effective communicator and has a lot of people listening to him. And while he is definitely more knowledgeable than most people, I don't think that he is uniquely capable of seeing the future of these technologies.
While I appreciate an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, you can't really use that to ignore everyone's experience and expertise. Sometimes people who have a huge amount of experience and knowledge on a subject do actually make a valid point, and their authority on the subject is enough to make them worth listening to.
Naming things in the context of AI, by someone who is already responsible for naming other things in the context of AI, when they have a lot of valid experience in the field of AI. It's not entirely unreasonable.
Not claiming anything to be false, just a reminder that you should question ones opinion a bit more and not claim they "know what they are talking about" because they worked with Fei-Fei Li. You are outsourcing your thinking to someone else which is lazy and a good way of getting conned.
I wish he went back to writing educational blogs/books/papers/material so we can learn how to build AI ourselves.
Most of us have the imagination to figure out how to best use AI. I'm sure most of us considered what OpenClaw is doing like from the first days of LLMs. What we miss is the guidance to understand the rapid advances from first principles.
If he doesn't want to provide that, perhaps he can write an AI tool to help us understand AI papers.
AI from first principles has not changed. Fundamentally it is: neural nets, transformers and RL. The most important paper in recent years is on CoT [https://arxiv.org/pdf/2201.11903] and I'm not even sure what comes close.
And I think what's more important these days is knowing how to filter the noise from the signal.
This is probably one of the better blogs I have read recently that shows the general direction currently in AI which are improvements on the generator / verifier loop: https://www.julian.ac/blog/2025/11/13/alphaproof-paper/
He did. His entire startup is about educational content. Nanochat is way better than llama / qwen as an educational tool. Though it is still missing the vision module.
Andrej is an extremely effective communicator and educator. But I don't agree that he is one of the most significant AI pioneers in history. His research contributions are significant but not exceptional compared to other folks around him at the time. He got famous for free online courses, not his research. His work at Tesla was not exactly a rousing success.
Today I see him as a major influence in how people, especially tech people, think about AI tools. That's valuable. But I don't really think it makes him a pioneer.
You can debate the meaning of the word pioneer but think of it this way: OpenAI created this new AI boom, and Andrej is a co-founder of the company that did that.
Would you say that Musk is one of the most significant AI pioneers in history? I don't personally believe that founding the organization is more meaningful than doing the actual work.
The difference is that Andrej is an actual AI engineer who remained involved in the company. Musk was just an early co-founder who eventually left and had no involvement on the breakthroughs of the company.
But is this meaningful enough to call him one the greatest pioneers? Up thread the argument was that he was a co-founder. Now it includes unspecified technical contributions? I don't even think that Andrej produced the most impactful AI research among grad students at Stanford when he was there.
I bet they feel so, so silly. A quick bit of reflection might reveal sarcasm.
I'll live up to my username and be terribly brave with a silly rhetorical question: why are we hearing about him through Simon? Don't answer, remember. Rhetorical. All the way up and down.
Welp, would have been a more useful post if he provided some context as to why he feels contempt for Karpathy rather than a post that is likely to come across as the parent interpreted.
reply