TeeWEE

Note true for all of them.

The work is not having AI poop out these docs the work is validating them and publishing them. OpenAI doesn’t care and wanted to race to publish potential findings and let others review it which is lazy and selfish

No it’s OpenAI’s job. They are acting as a meat proxy

Did you validate the proof? Who did?

This feels like a huge AI slop dump. Who validated these results. Why are they not mentioned. Human understanding is key here.

In my experience AI (frontier models) sometimes does weird stuff that needs human review. Not that’s incorrect but sometimes overly complex language or weird use of language.

Was using Reveal.js which worked well because it can use any HTML or any plugin.

Bento works with a predefined schema, so you cant use any HTML library (Such as Mermaid.js) if you need it in your presentation.

But then again, often you dont need it.

Just created a presentation with Bento... I do think Reveal.js gives you more raw power. But I like bentos single html page design, and you can easily edit it manually. You cant do that with Reveal.js

Basically it’s AI on top of AI for metadata extraction.

There are a lot of claims in the article but not a lot of hard data. In the end they still don’t know if the data is correct.

Good luck with your glutes allergy.

The weird thing for me is the prompt optimization loop? Why not fine tune the model instead of AI generating the prompt?

This is mostly a thin clintypescript wrapper around the prompts.

This could have been a SKILL

> Git itself wasn't designed for that load, and bolting AI onto platforms not built for agents is the biggest mistake of this era. We're doing a generational rebuild of the underlying infrastructure to handle agent-rate work as the default. Git itself is being reengineered for machine scale. The monolith is giving way to modern, API-first, composable services

Two big red flags here.

First git itself is distributed and built for scale.

I guesss they mean “gitlab” instead of “git”. But such a huge mistake would never go unnoticed.

Are they going to rebuilt git??

Secondly: a big rebuilt of monolith to services. Firstly there is nothing wrong with a Modulith. Secondly “rebuilt” will cause a lot of busy work without immediate value for customers.

And first of all: this announcement is done due to the stock price not AI The productivity increase with AI is inflated because they want their stock price up.

Sell Gitlab stock while you can. The leadership team has no clue what they are doing.

Sadly non engineering leaders buy into this dogma. AI is very usefull but in my experience doesn’t 10x if you don’t YOLO it.

That’s indeed the trick. Spacex “invests” in Cursor, looks good on their balance sheet.

And xAI now gets 10B of more revenue on their income statement.

Perfect financial statement boosting for the IPO which in turn will pay back these costs.

At least that’s the bet.

There are two kid of specs, formal spec, and "Product requirements / technical designs"

Technical design docs are higher level than code, they are impricise but highlight an architectural direction. Blanks need to be filled in. AI Shines here.

Formal specs == code Some language shine in being very close to a formal spec. Yes functional languages.

But lets first discuss which kind of spec we talk about.

I think nanoclaw is architecturaly much better suited to solve this problem.

We make the creator of the PR responsible for the code. Meaning they must understand it.

Also, we only allow engineers to commit (agent generated) code. Designers just come up with suggestions, engineers take it and ensure it fits our architecture.

We do have a huge codebase. We are teaching Claude Code with CLAUDE.md's and now also <feature>.spec.md (often a summary of the implementation plan).

In the end, engineers are responsible.

If you work at OpenAI, leave now while you can.

My point is: Trust the work of AI just like the work of a contracter: Check and verify, but dont micromanage.