hgo

My experience is not the same. Opus 5.5 lets me work as much as I want and I can't deplete 20x.

To me, it sounds like the point of the article is that we're skipping the nuance and jumping straight to effectively declaring equality between AI use and slop, which is a bit sad in a couple of ways: a) effort is apparently so rare, that the distinction between effortful content creation with AI and opportunistic press-a-button "content" creation is too difficult. b) real pervasive concern about our future (rightfully?) motivates sweeping judgement against the whole creative space with any AI involved. c) concretely, its sad in itself that any arena of expression is overwhelmed with low effort.

On the other hand, by the very nature press-a-button content is so easy to make that it will naturally bury real content unless someone takes an active gate keeper role. (Every channel on Youtube I know has made in-depth complaints that this is not happening there.)

I hope we find a way around it, so that we can enjoy content and products that is made with the same amount of effort as before but with more powerful tools creating a better end result. Not to mention lower barrier to entry into creative spaces, giving us more perspectives and ideas expressed in a quality way.

I have to say that I'm very pleased with this version.

My prime anecdotal reason: I asked Opus 5.5 to make a sweeping change with a few Sonnet agents. It clarified the scope, we agreed and then it started. I saw some problems on the way and asked it. It's answer: This didn't go as planned. The Sonnet agents don't have the right judgement capacity for this, so they take shortcuts based on their limited scope X. I suggest we terminate them, roll back their changes and I can schedule an Opus agent to do it instead. It will be slower but done correctly.

There is a first time for everything.

Every interaction I've had with Opus 5.5 so far feels like talking to. An adult.

I saw the announcement video and I'm so relieved to hear actual honest language!

- Actually naming your inspiration as Apple

- Saying that thanks to machined body, the keyboard is actually slightly better. No overstatement, just an honest detail

- No: "This is our best laptop yet" (As if managing to not making it worse is something to be proud of)

- To the point, fast paced, clear communication

- Honestly stating that you're working hard on getting as good as "the gold standard, which of course is Apples track pad" and that you think you'll get there soon

- Clearly stating that the new memory standard is not magically your own invention somehow even though you're the first to use it

- Clearly stating the actual numbers of the battery in Wh and density AND also how many video minutes you get

- Clearly stating, not hiding but also not overstating that you started the company for the purpose of upgradeability

- Proving what you mean with examples before emphasising that "we really mean it when we say we have redesigned the computer from the ground up" (While absolutely fantastically letting the new motherboards upgrade last generation chassis!)

Result: I placed a pre-order, and kind of felt sad for this honest and clear language to apparently be rare.

Ah, seems like the right thing. To be more clear on what I'm looking for is this: the system using the LLM gateway would present an arbitrary user id. Let's say the system has thousands of end-users (completely managed by that system and not configured in the LLM proxy). The admin is interested in blocking end-users from using more than a certain allowed quota.

Hey, this looks super nice. I do like the 'compact' feel of this. Reminds me of Traefik. It seems very promising indeed!

One problem I have is that yes, LiteLLM key creation is easier than creating it directly at the providers and managing it there for team members and test environments, but if I had a way of generating keys via vault, it would be perfect and such a relief in many ways.

I see what I need on your roadmap, but miss integration with service where I can inspect and debug completion traffic, and I don't see if I would be able to track usage from individual end-users through a header.

Thank you and godspeed!

Cheerful intro do DIY combustion, milling, nozzles, simulation, machining.

Yes, I agree and I use LLM in writing myself. I raise it because it was eerie to me as a reader and I wonder if its a common thought. I wonder what other readers think on this matter.

Again, I appreciate the article very much and I'm glad the other comments are on the article's content.

Yes. Let's assume so. My point is the suspicion itself.

I like this article and it reads well, but I have to say, that to me it really reads as something written by an LLM. Probably under supervision by a human that knew what it should say.

I don't know if I mind.

Example. This paragraph, to me, has a eerily perfect rhythm. The ending sentence perfectly delivers the twist. Like, why would you write in perfect prose an argument piece in the science realm?

> Unlike Alice, who spent the year reading papers with a pencil in hand, scribbling notes in the margins, getting confused, re-reading, looking things up, and slowly assembling a working understanding of her corner of the field, Bob has been using an AI agent. When his supervisor sent him a paper to read, Bob asked the agent to summarize it. When he needed to understand a new statistical method, he asked the agent to explain it. When his Python code broke, the agent debugged it. When the agent's fix introduced a new bug, it debugged that too. When it came time to write the paper, the agent wrote it. Bob's weekly updates to his supervisor were indistinguishable from Alice's. The questions were similar. The progress was similar. The trajectory, from the outside, was identical.