Feed

If every lab stopped training new models tomorrow, that wouldn’t change the fact that GPT-6 Astra and Fable 5.1 are already enough to change how large parts of the economy work. The capability overhang between what those models can do today and what most folks are using them for is massive.

Whatever else you say about the AI doomers, they have more than two decades’ history of explicitly spelling out exactly what they believe and why, even when it was complete science fiction to talk about AI at all. They’ve earned the right to be treated as sincere.

In fact, with Astra and Fable I feel like not only are the costs astronomical, but the models are also just not for me as a software engineer. And presumably that’s because these models increasingly are for other people. For lawyers, 3D artists, mathematicians, whoever uses computer use, etc.

it is not even obvious that AIs aren’t conscious! People often dismiss this point by diagnosing it (to my mind, the absolute worst way to argue against anything), or by pointing at some philosophical theory that suggests it might be impossible in principle to construct artificial sentient minds.

I think we are asking the wrong question. Maybe the question should be, are humans obviously conscious?

Staying ahead of the models is a moving target. At the start of 2026, “make working changes to large codebases” was in this category, but now it’s not. For this reason, I doubt that you can retreat to some “hard engineering” area that requires deeper expertise. That might work in the short term, but not forever. If LLMs can find a better lower bound on the Riemann hypothesis, they will soon1 be able to write solid high-performance kernel drivers or GPU shaders or whatever.

We’re going to need to create a cost for the sender (so it can’t scale to ridiculous) as well as an identity layer (so scammers can’t be fully anonymous–reputation is earned, not invented). It might be an open protocol in the spirit of the best parts of the net, or it might be a single monopolist that figures out how to extract value from it.

Brilliant advice for dealing with slop from your coworkers.

This is one of the great promises of play-based (or self-directed) learning. When children are free to play, we aren't compelled to measure them against any single standard of what a child ought to be. There is a place in our country for the child who can't sit still, the child who becomes obsessed with a single idea, the child who takes risks, the child who notices what the rest of us cannot "see," the child who thinks and communicates and connects in ways we don't immediately understand.

The truth is, I barely think about these things as “apps” (I have no intention to distribute them). They’re artifacts of me making my computer do stuff for me, the way I want it to. As a Unix nerd, I’ve always been able to do this, in the language of the command line. Now, it’s just as easy to do that kind of work with graphical interfaces.

Wean off of using AI like a chat-based assistant. Shift-left so that most of the work is done in your first prompt and think of yourself as more of a manager than a co-pilot. Review results, not intermediate chat messages. In pair-prompting sessions I’ve done, the most common mistake I see is folks trickling narrow tasks into the chat session to accomplish a larger goal rather than just shifting left the full goal into a document and just letting the agent cook (without interruption!) from that.