pixelsort

If this ever became widespread, people would game the "verified real" checkmark using the analog gap.

1. Print AI photo 2. Point fancy expensive camera at printed photo 3. Take a "real" photo

Then you'd see more sensors and even more expensive cameras. Then you'd see miniatured virtual-production volumes.

So, this is not a solution. It's just an arms race disguised as one.

The OP rediscovered that frontier models prefer to reason over logical scaffolding for complex tasks. They excel at technical work with many constraints as they can perfectly maintain the references, flow graph, and evidence states while they works through your conformance gates.

Many people here might disagree; but they're holding it wrong. Those folks should ask:

1. Am I using free tier tokens? 2. Am I working on trivial software? 3. Am I expecting models to adapt to my ways of thinking?

Anyone affect by any of these three mistakes will maintain an impenetrable filter of perpetual ignorance about model capabilities. Since the OP came with receipts, I'm reproducing an example graph below.

From a plan in my active research project:

  Phase 0   resolve -> vendor -> pin             [USER+agent]  -> G0 CORPUS-RESOLVED   [PASS]

  Track B   B1 Abusalah              [WRITTEN]   [agent]       -> G1B Q-BOUNDARY
            B2 Guan-Riazanov-Yuan    [WRITTEN]                  (KILL-BOUNDARY risk)
            B3 Mahmoody-Smith-Wu     [WRITTEN]  + O-MSW-VERIFIER-COST closed (t = 588, MEASURED)
                                     -> G1B PASSED: BOUNDARY-ESTABLISHED

  Track A   05 Binius                [WRITTEN]   [agent]       -> G1 AUDITS-COMPLETE [PASS] 2026-08-28
            07 FRI-Binius 2024/504   [WRITTEN] — vendored by USER; calculated Q-FLOOR point obtained
            06 HOBBIT                [WRITTEN] — O-QUEUE-M escalated to 179 Phase 2
            01 Wesolowski            [WRITTEN] — hinge splits; C_overlap = 0, C_tail = 57.50% computed
            02 Tight VDFs            [WRITTEN] — no omega; O(log T) proof threads; black-box RO base impossible
            03 LaBRADOR (light)      [WRITTEN] — calculated, not measured; translation remains open
            04 LatticeFold+          -- deferred to pre-141

  Track C   [PASS] C0a contract -> C0b exact simulator -> G0C TRANSLATION-READY
            C2 Alwen-Serbinenko [TECHNIQUE-ONLY] -> C1 SoW [PASS] ANCESTRY-FOUND
                                                -> C4 Seeded PoW [FORM-ONLY]
                                                                 -> G1C [RED] WORK-LEMMA-MISSING
                                                                          [WARN] ANCESTRY-CLASSICAL
                                                                 -> L0 [PASS] SCOPE-FROZEN
                                                                      |- E0 response [PASS] PRESENT
                                                                      `- L1-L2 local [PASS] CARRIER-QUOTIENT
                                                                           -> J0 [PASS] TECHNIQUE-FIT CONFIRMED
                                                                                -> admission decision [PASS] CANONICAL RESULT
                                                                                     -> A0 [AMBER] REFERENCE-TESTED
                                                                                          -> A1 [PASS] ROOT-LEAF FEASIBILITY LEAD
                                                                                               -> semantic equivalence + epoch [USER]
            C3, C5  -- deferred to pre-141

  Phase 2   Q-TAIL / Q-FLOOR synthesis           [agent]       -> [PASS] G2: TAIL-MECHANISM-FOUND · FLOOR-OPEN
  Phase 3   reference ledger for 141              [agent]       -> CLOSED; awaits fresh USER authorization

AI will not begin to benefit student learning unless educators pivot into a strict bifurcation pattern around access.

For example, alternating weeks with and without the permission to use AI assistance. This is also the latent solution for corporate de-skilling that no one seems to be talking about yet.

However, it won't happen (in both cases) because we're too early. Domain experts like the OP are still relinquishing their expertise to unlock productivity gains. Once that bottoms out there will be no longer be demand for people like OP to betray their peer groups.

Learning with AI assistance be as frictionless and productive as I suppose it can, but de-skilling and job consolidation (role expansion) will continue.

I've been using my own variant docset driven development since late last year. It emerged organically for me by adapting to the limits of the agents.

- Prefix-numbered sets of documents, keeping them clustered visually and easily referenced by humans and agents. (124.5 = docset 125, phase 5) - Each doc gets a suffix. Most of the time STRATEGY is the first doc. Sometimes NOTES, DISCUSSION, or HANDOFF though. - Once the strategy doc is comprehensive, the multi-phase checklist PLAN doc can emerge. - During execution, the agent drives the PLAN while purposefully expanding lightly scaffolded phases before entry. - As the user, I drive a PROGRESS doc during the PLAN execution. This tracks the progression of my own questions and the important work summaries that I need for tracking the current work trajectory and for historic analysis over past decision-making. - Any concern that exceed the scope of the active docset numbers calls for a new one. - A "docs/archive" folder is kept where I sweep docsets into numbered eras.

I have aliases and templates too, but DDD is so simple that it's overkill.

Any modern reasoning agent can take the plain explanation above and understand you effortlessly when you say "open a new docset strategy" or "read docset 125 and proceed".

Yes, that's probably his dumbest public idea to date. Given that this GPT repos and parts of autoresearch are brilliant I'm sympathetic. I think he's earned the right to exhibit mild expressions of AI psychosis at this point.

And, my objection was that he clearly had no understanding of the supply-chain risk he was worsening by advocating widespread use of Obsidian for agentic engineering tasks.

Since his announcement, Obsidian has taken proactive steps to mitigate the risks, or at least study threat model. Hopefully, they will implement proper RBAC or something before someone else with his visibility announces an even more irresponsible half-baked idea.

Make sure you are running adaptive cooling (or just bump them up) on the top fans in your case. Also, ensure that you are undervolting appropriately using something like MSI Afterburner or GreenWithEnvy.

If you don't, you could easily toast your RAM -- especially under BF16.

There could be opportunities we haven't anticipated.

What if labor organizes around human work and consumers are willing to pay the premium?

At that point, it's an arms race against the SotA models in order to deepen the resolution and harden the security mechanisms for capturing the human-affirming signals produced during work. Also, lowering the friction around verification.

In that timeline, workers would have to wear devices to monitor their GSR and record themselves on video to track their PPG. Inconvenient, and ultimately probably doomed, but it could extend or renew the horizon for certain kinds of knowledge work.

In the many darker timelines that one can extrapolate, capturing essential tech stacks is just a pre-cursor to capturing hiring.

Once we start seeing Open AI and Anthropic getting into the certifications and testing they'll quickly become the gold standard. They won't even need to actually test anyone. People will simply consent to having their chat interactions analyzed.

The models collect more information about us than we could ever imagine because definitionally, those features are unknown unknowns for humans. For ML, the gaps in our thinking carry far richer information about is than our actual vocabularies, topics of interest, or stylometric idiosyncrasies.

The level of compliance and enthusiasm varies. Some believe they are making the world a better place. Some feel they're adding value but suspect they are trapped within a cycle they refuse to examine. Some are more connected to the truth, and comply willingly but resentfully.

Where you fall depends on where you work and what you work on.

You make a great points about the chain of accountability. But, in my opinion, working professionals are the only agents in the system with the potential to realize their own culpability and divert their actions.

Perhaps, it isn't fair to point to them and call them traitors. Still, they are the only ones with enough agency to potentially organize and collectively push for the kind of ethics that could save us all.

While the desire is not new, advancements in LLMs and diffusion models have made this sort of bridging effective and attractive to an unprecedented degree.

Those massively and widely available benefits will continue to deflate the value of human intelligence until even most of innovators currently working on them lose their seats at the table too.

> There is every reason to believe that those who invest in deep understanding will continue to be valuable, regardless of what tools emerge.

I don't take issue with this, except that it's a false comfort when when you consider the demand will naturally ebb and individual workload will naturally escalate. In that light, I find it downright dishonest because the rewards for attaining deep knowledge will continue to evaporate; necessitating AI-assistance.

The reason is it different this time around is because the capabilities of LLMs have incentivized the professional class to betray the institutions that enabled their specializations. I am talking about the amazing minds at Adobe, Figma, and the FAANGS who are bridging agentic reasoners and diffusion models with domain-specific needs of their respective professional users.

Humans are class of beings, and the humans accelerating the advance of AI in creative tools are the reason that things are different this time. We have class traitors among us this time, and they're "just doing their jobs". For most, willful disbelief isn't even a factor. They think they're helping while each PR just brings them closer to unemployment.