Data point: I run a site where users submit a record. There was a request months ago to allow users to edit the record after submitting. I put it off because while it's an established pattern it touches a lot of things and I found it annoying busy work and thus low priority. So then gpt5-codex came out and allowed me to use it in codex cli with my existing member account. I asked it to support edit for that feature all the way through the backend with a pleasing UI that fit my theme. It one-shotted it in about ten minutes. I asked for one UI adjustment that I decided I liked better, another five minutes, and I reviewed and released it to prod within an hour. So, you know, months versus an hour.
He's referring to the reality that AI helps you pick up and finish tasks that you otherwise would have put off. I see this all day every day with my side projects as well as security and customer escalations that come into my team. It's not that Giant Project X was done six times as fast. It's more like we were able to do six small but consequential bug fixes and security updates while we continued to push on the large feature.
“If you make a machine that can wash the dishes in an hour, is that more productive than not doing the dishes for months?” - Yes! That’s the definition of productivity!! The dishes are getting done now and they weren’t before! lol
Too bad it's misogynistic. I'm not sure you already knew that. If I were rude enough to call you a name, I wonder what term I could use that would work either way!
For those who don't know, OpenAI Codex CLI will now work with your ChatGPT plus or pro account. They barely announced it but it's on their github page. You don't have to use an api key.
I felt like it was getting somewhere and then it pivoted to the stupid graph thing, which I can't seem to escape. Anyway, I think it'll be really interesting to see how this settles out over the next few weeks, and how that'll contrast to what the 24-hour response has been.
My own very naive and underinformed sense: OpenAI doesn't have other revenue paths to fall back on like Google does. The GPT5 strategy really makes sense to me if I look at this as a market share strategy. They want to scale out like crazy, in a way that is affordable to them. If it's that cheap, then they must have put a ton of work in to some scaling effort that the other vendors just don't care about as much, whether due to loss-leader economics or VC funding. It really makes me wonder if OpenAI is sitting on something much better that also just happens to be much, much more expensive.
Overall, I'm weirdly impressed because if that was really their move here, it's a slight evidence point that shows that somewhere down in their guts, they do really seem to care about their original mission. For people other than power users, this might actually be a big step forward.
I agree that they don't have other revenue paths and think that's a big issue for them. I disagree that this means they care about their original mission though; I think they're struggling to replicate their original insane step function model improvements and other players have caught up.
The 2h 15m is the length of tasks the model can complete with 50% probability. So longer is better in that sense. Or at least, "more advanced" and potentially "more dangerous".
Im a firm believer that there will never be a perfect general purpose job scheduler. The priority for how jobs are scheduled is always deeply coupled to your business needs. General purpose schedulers always end up as a jack of all trades but master of none. With a custom built scheduler you get that control, but do have to re-invent the wheel for a lot of features. Jenkins, Argo, Airflow, Cron, etc, all have their own pros and cons.
They have, but they're beyond grasp of most developers.
Tests were invented to express the "why" for the normal guy. They don't strictly prevent compilation, but a proper workflow will see them halt your process in the same way, offering the same outcome.
Granted, there are a lot of horribly written tests out there that don't tell you "why" — or, well, anything. As always, people will find a way to abuse anything you put in front of them. But when used well...
With a test, it might link up some functionality with "why" and pass, but then what happens if a business requirement just isn't a requirement anymore? The test will still pass. I'm thinking of something sillier, like a language that forces you to justify why for your code, and then regularly quizzes you if the business reasoning is still true. If anything changes, it rips out the code and breaks your site. :) So then you have to go in to fix it.
I'd also love it if this were applied to politics and laws.
Yeah this seems like the specification/implementation problem. One can perfectly implement a bad spec, but coming up with the perfect spec is a human problem.
It's possible you could at least mitigate the problem by checking that what you've proven isn't trivial. If you slightly change a mathematical statement, it frequently becomes either trivially true or trivially false. So if you accidentally proved the wrong thing, there's a good chance that your proof can be shortened to a point that it becomes obviously wrong.
For example, if you accidentally put "there exists" instead of "for all" in Fermat's last theorem, the proof is 1^3 + 1^3 != 1^3. That is obviously too short to prove FLT - it would have fit in Fermat's margin.
It's interesting that this rather fundamental problem doesn't seem to have an established name and Wikipedia article. At least I couldn't find one. Perhaps the problem is too obvious.
It's just that they take turns. The top rivals in darts, or pool, or any other turn-taking game is the same way. They have to react to what their rival left them.
reply