I read these sort of comments every so often and I do not understand them. You are in a sea of people telling you that they are developing software much quicker which ticks the required boxes. I understand that for some reason this isn't the case for your work flow, but obviously it has a lot more value for others.

If you are a chairmaker and everyone gains access to a machine that can spit out all the chair components but sometimes only spits out 3 legs or makes a mistake on the backs, you might find it pointless. Maybe it can't do all the nice artisan styles you can do. But you can be confident others will take advantage of this chair machine, work around the issues and drive the price down from $20 per chair to $2 per chair. In 24 months, you won't be able to sell enough of your chairs any more.

I don’t know if it’s 90%, but I’m shipping in 2 days things that took 2-4 weeks before.

Opus 4.5 in particular has been a profound shift. I’m not sure how software dev as a career survives this. I have nearly 0 reason to hire a developer for my company because I just write a spec and Claude does it in one shot.

It’s honestly scary, and I hope my company doesn’t fail because as a developer I’m fucked. But… statistically my business will fail.

I think in a few years there will only be a handful of software companies—the ones who already have control of distribution. Products can be cloned in a few weeks now; not long until it’s a few minutes. I used to see a new competitor once every six months. Now I see a new competitor every few hours.

Apple seems to have an AI strategy - throw $1 billion at Google for its models.

This is a good point, technically chromebooks fit this definition?

> The real concern for me is incredibly rich people with no empathy for you or I, having interstitial control of that kind of messaging. See, all of the grok ai tweaks over the past however long.

Indeed. It's always been clear to me that the "AI risk" people are looking in the wrong direction. All the AI risks are human risks, because we haven't solved "human alignment". An AI that's perfectly obedient to humans is still a huge risk when used as a force multiplier by a malevolent human. Any ""safeguards"" can easily be defeated with the Ender's Game approach.

I just tried it with GPT-5.1-Codex. The compression ratio is not amazing, so not sure if it really worked, but at least it ran without errors.

A few ideas how to make it work for you:

1. You gave a link to a PDF, but you did not describe how you provided the content of the PDF to the model. It might only have read the text with something like pdftotext, which for this PDF results in a garbled mess. It is safer to convert the pages to PNG (e.g. with pdftoppm) and let the model read it from the pages. A prompt like "Transcribe these pages as markdown." should be sufficient. If you can not see what the model did, there is a chance it made things up.

2. You used C++, but Python is much easier to write. You can tell the model to translate the code to C++ once it works in Python.

3. Tell the model to write unit tests to verify that the individual components work as intended.

4. Use Agent Mode and tell the model to print something and to judge whether the output is sensible, so it can debug the code.

Can you give some concrete example of programming problem task GPT fails to solve?

Interested, because I’ve been getting pretty good results with different tasks using the Codex.

> In an October letter to the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman recommended that the US add 100 gigawatts in energy capacity every year.

> Krishna also referenced the depreciation of the AI chips inside data centers as another factor: "You've got to use it all in five years because at that point, you've got to throw it away and refill it," he said.

And people think the climate concerns of AI are overblown. Currently US has ~1300 GW of energy capacity. That's a huge increase each year.

Worse, is that a lot of these people are acting like Moore's law isn't still in effect. People conflate clock speeds on beefy hardware with moore's law, and act like it's dead, when transistor density rises, and cost per transistor continue to fall at rates similar to what they always have. That means the people racing to build out infrastructure today might just be better off parking that money in a low interest account, and waiting 6 months. That was a valid strategy for animation studios in the late 90s (it was not only cheaper to wait, but also the finished renders happened sooner), and I'd be surprised if it's not a valid strategy today for LLMs. The amount of silicon that is going to be produced that is specialized for this type of processing is going to be mind boggling.