Some of us are stuck on subscriptions and our executives will never give us API access.
But also, everyone says "it's the harness" and almost nobody ever gives good examples, it gets a bit tiring to read everywhere, as if everyone wants to sell a harness to us.
> But perhaps the story is more about consumers who just want new, exciting things like weird door handles and 30 inches of screens
We should never underestimate people's weird desires but this is mostly not it IMO. There was a new generation that felt the need to rebel against old established stuff and of course is now painfully rediscovering why this stuff was established in the first place.
Infuriating to watch, mind you. But also predictable, like watching bots play StarCraft against each other.
Yeah, exactly my experience. Especially ever since Fable came out, I felt paralysed, many times, about how many decisions I have to hand it. Which is 10x harder when you handed it the reins to build the PR and you practically only knew the compressed initial problem statement. Then it stands up a draft PR and says: "Decisions you owe me: [insert bulleted list with 8 items each a paragraph long]" and you are like: "...oh shit".
It becomes a very heavy and difficult exercise of it walking you through the implementation and the judgment calls it had to make along the way. VERY exhausting.
There's a silver lining though: you do get to gradually clarify a proto project spec and various requirements, but boy does it take time and energy to re-contextualise when the bot tells you that you should make decisions.
Just last two weeks I had to slap Fable, three times, to stop writing 1000-2000 lines of defensive code... because of DB columns I just forgot should be NOT NULL. That was it. Nothing else. I told it that, boom, -4800 coding lines: gone.
LLMs defend the status quo and they regularly lose sight of everything bigger than the current PR they are working on.
I too am gradually making peace with the fact that LLM-maintained code does not have to be 100% readable for humans.
But this is not about readability. It's about the data model. So one concession I am willing to make is: don't care too much about the code _BUT_ manually curate the data model. So far: small wins on iteration turns and code volume producing. Too early to tell but for now I am happy with the results.
What do the EU investors do outside of demanding guaranteed profit with zero risk for them? How many are ready to absorb 10-30 years of new infrastructure investments and play the long game?
If the EU wants to compete, well, here's the global market, right that way. ==>
Get to it. Nobody is actually stopping you.
But if you have no appetite for risk, don't complain when one day you realize you don't have EU alternatives.
"With Astra, we’re introducing a new way for Codex to preserve and retrieve context when the context window fills. Historically, models have used compaction to summarize work during long sessions, such as when debugging complex issues or tackling large refactors. Each compaction can leave out details about why a fix failed or how a component behaves. In Codex, Astra can keep notes across context windows, preserving accumulated details without repeatedly compressing them into a single summary. Earlier context windows remain searchable, so Astra can find requirements or test results from previous messages and tool outputs—even if that information wasn’t captured in its notes. You can enable this experimental feature in your Codex config.toml, (opens in a new window) and it will become the default for Astra in the coming weeks."
This clearly is Codex-specific, not as much a feature of the model (though obviously they probably have trained it to be great at working with their own tools). Sounds somewhat similar to pi-observational-memory I'm using with Pi.
I use OpenCode with my ChatGPT subscription, which is officially supported on both sides and a damn good deal (OpenCode Go is great too).
OpenCode has “providers” for many (many!) other services, but these are almost all unofficial and against ToS (Anthropic being famous for ban-hammering people).
Sounds like their problem, not something a SaaS product should dance around.
Yet they kind of did. I've limited participation in my libraries with GitHub's setting that nobody who made an account in the last 6 months can do anything in my repos (after some misguided hustler thought they're an easy target and posted an ad).lp
Time's marching forward though. Wonder what will happen after a few more months. We'll have bot spam accounts that are no longer as fresh.
But also, everyone says "it's the harness" and almost nobody ever gives good examples, it gets a bit tiring to read everywhere, as if everyone wants to sell a harness to us.
reply