I am speechless everytime I see posts like this and the comments following, vote with your behavior stop supporting and enabling the Peter Thiel universe, just a few weeks ago we had an oped about openAI and Sam, look into yourselfs and really reflect on whom you are enabling by continuing to contribute to their baseline

Its clear that it will go in this type of direction but Anthropic announced managed agents just a week ago and this again with all the biuld in connections and tools will help so many non computer people to do a lot more faster and better.

I'm waiting for the open source ai ecosystem to catch up :/

I don't like it, and I'm sure you don't either, but it's not a Mac. Or a Linux. And it's what most actual desktop users are stuck with, still.

Eventually once they have more users they'll do the same thing as Anthropic, of course.

It's all a transparent PR play and it's kind of absurd to see the X/HN crowd fall for it hook, line, and sinker.

They have AGI now?

Without 3rd party tools/plugins.

In order to do this we will eat everyone's lunch.

Does anyone know of a good option that works on Wayland Linux?

I wonder if there’s something off the shelf that does this?

Bunch of startups need to pivot today after this announcement including mine

Ok. I upgrade.

"You've hit the message limit, upgrade to Plus for more".

Hmm. They've charged me. There's no meaningful support. I just got scammed, didn't I...

but there is no link, why would you not make this a link.

boggles my mind that companies make such little use of hypertext

I am getting some strange vibes here ... is AI actually also spying on these developers?

Why is OpenAI obsessed with generating imgaes? Do they think "generate image" is a thing that a software engineer do on a daily basis?

Even when I was doing heavy web development, I can count the number of times I needed to generate images, and usually for prototyping only.

It's not the smaller players spending billions on training data.

But Opus is both smarter and faster than GPT, so I can get a lot more done during the Claude limits.

At least, that's my theory.

The big advantages of local on a business level are:

- Freezing your model's exact settings once you've locked in some kind of workflow that works just fine. - Guarding against insane token usage from LLMs who have been told to never stop until they figure out the solution OR setting up an LLM run incorrectly. (The last one happened to me with Gemini 3.1 Pro) - PII or some need for on-premise only LLMs.

When I argue this, my point is that FOSS shouldn't target the desktop with open weights - it should target H200s. Really big parameter models with big VRAM requirements.

Those can always be distilled down, but you can't really go the other way.

The TL;DR is that unless you are doing it as a hobby or working in an environment where none of the data privacy options supported by Anthropic/OpenAI (including running on Azure/Bedrock with ZDR) work for you then it's not worth it.

The best open models are around the Sonnet 4.6 level. That's excellent, but the level of tasks you can give to GPT 5.4 or Opus 4.6 is just so much higher it doesn't compare (and Opus 4.7 seems noticeably better in my few hours of testing too).

I have my own benchmarks, but I like this much under-publicized OpenHands page: https://index.openhands.dev/home

It shows for every task they test closed models do the best. The closest and open model gets is Minmax 2.7 on issue resolution where it's ~1% worse than the leaders.

That matches my experience - fine for small problems, but well behind has the task gets bigger.

For many things now you need to go local and in the future if you want any privacy you'll need to go local.

It makes using my Claude Pro sub actually feasible: write a plan with it, pick it up with my local model and implement it, now I'm not running out of tokens haha.

Is it worth it from a unit economics POV? Probably not, but I bought this thing to learn how to deploy and serve models with vLLM and SGLang, and to learn how to fine tune and train models with the 128GB of memory it gets to work with. Adding up two 40GB vectors in CUDA was quite fun :)

I also use Z.ai's Lite plan for the moment for GLM-5.1 which is very capable in my experience.

I was using Alibaba's Lite Coding Plan... but they killed it entirely after two months haha, too cheap obviously. Or all the *claw users killed it.

Most recently I used it to develop a script to help me manage email. The implementation included interacting with my provider over JMAP, taking various actions, and implementing an automated unsubscribe flow. It was greenfield, and quite trivial compared to the codebases I normally interact with, but it was definitely useful.

People have different levels of safety-consciousness, but also different tolerances and threat models.

For example, I would hesitate running a Mythos-level model in YOLO mode with full control over my computer, but right now, for personal stuff, even figuring out WTF are sandboxes in Claude Code / Gemini CLI, much less setting them up, is too much hassle. What's the worst it can do without me noticing? Format the drive and upload some private data into pastebin? Much as I hate cloud and the proliferation of 2FA in every service, that alone means it can't actually do more to me than waste few hours of my life, as I reimage my desktop and restore OneDrive (in case of destructive changes that got synced up). These models are not yet good enough to empty my bank account in few minutes I'm not looking; everything else they can do quickly is reversible or inconsequential.

Now, I do look at things closely when working with agentic AI tools. But my threat model is limited to worrying about those few hours of my life. `rm -rf / --no-preserve-root` is an annoyance, not a danger.

(I accept that different contexts give different threat modeling. I would be more worried if I were doing businessy business stuff with all kinds of secret sauces, or was processing PII of my employer's customers, or lived in a country where it's easy to have all your money stolen if your CC number or SSN gets posted online.)

If you stick to tailwind + server side rendered pages you can probably go pretty far with just AI and no code knowledge but once you introduce modern TS tooling, I don't think it's enough anymore.

A better design can be made somewhat default by AGENTS.md instructions, but they can still make a mess unless on a short leash.

Developers built themselves really good OSes for doing developer things. Actually using it to do things was secondary.

Want to run a web server? Awesome choice. Want to write networking code? Great. Setup a reliable DB with automated backups? Easy peasy.

Want a stable desktop environment? Well after almost 30 years we just about have one. Kind of. It isn't consistent and I need to have a post it note on my monitor with the command to restart plasma shell, but things kind of work.

Current AI tools are so damn focused on building developer experiences, everything else is secondary. I get it, developers know how to fix developer pain points, and it monitizes well.

But holy shit. Other things are possible. Someone please do them. Or hell give me a 20 or 30 million and I'll do it.

But just.... The obvious is sitting out there for anyone who has spent 10 minutes not being just a developer.

Basic things like detecting common pain points, to automatically figuring out who is the SME for a topic. AIs are really good at categorizations and tagging, heck even before modern LLMs this is something ML could do.

But instead we have AI driven code reviews.

Code Reviews are rarely the blocker for productivity! As an industry, we need to stop automating the easy stuff and start helping people accomplish the hard stuff!

We need a product person, maybe with a turtle neck sweater and an horrid work-life attitude, to fix this up, instead of a weirdly philosophic basilisk fearing idealist.

People want to do stuff, and they want to get it done fast and in a pretty straightforward manner. They don’t want to follow complicated steps (especially with conditional) and they don’t want to relearn how to do it (because the vendor changes the interface).

So the only thing they want is a very simple interface (best if it’s a single button or a knob), and then for the expected result to happen. Whatever exists in the middle doesn’t matter as long as the job is done.

So an interface to the above may be a form with the start and end date, a location, and a plan button. Then all the activities are show where the user selects the one he wants and clicks a final Buy button. Then a confirmation message is displayed.

Anything other than that or that obscure what is happening (ads, network error, agents malfunctioning,…) is an hindrance and falls under the general “this product does not work”.

OP gave a good example how their workflow was changed, you could argue there are tools that could've done that, but they managed to achieve their goals without them, have something that fits their workflow perfectly, is fine tuned in case of changes, and with a few other tools (Word, Excel, Figma) they can do all sorts of things which would've required a small team or far more (expensive) tools to execute.

To me that is a great example of non-developers using tools to enhance their workflows and with initiatives like from this topic, I can only see that increasing.

It doesn't obviate the need for software, but it greatly devalues software products, as they become reduced to tool calls for LLMs.

This is good for users, because software products are defined by boundaries - borders drawn around the code to focus and package functionality, yes, but also to limit interoperability and create a sales channel (UX being the perfect marketing platform for captive audience).

After all, I don't usually want to play with Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and Figma - they're just standing between me and the artifact I want to create, so if I can get LLM to operate them for me, I don't have to deal with all the UX and marketing bullshit those products throw at me.

I mean, that's what I'd do if I could afford to hire a person to operate those tools for me. That, again, is the best mental model for LLMs - they're little people on a chip, cheaper to employ than actual people.

Or not. Besides, the better AI models can effortlessly generate Latex/Beamer, a far superior solution for typesetting and presentations. Anything than can be done in Excel can be done in Python. Those proprietary tools are a thing of the past, no one should use them anymore.

An example here is in engineering. Building a simulator for some process makes computing it much safer and consistent vs. having people redo the calculations themselves, even with AI assistance.

Was code quality ever there in complex enterprise systems?

I just updated Codex and looked inside the macOS app package. It is most definitely still an Electron app.

Their naming is not very clear. The codex desktop app is somewhat of a frontend for the codex cli.

By the look and feel of it I would guess it is written with Electron.

This seems to be the new narrative around here but it's not jiving with what I'm experiencing. Obviously Anthropic's uptime stats are terrible but when it's up, it's excellent (and I personally haven't had any issues with uptime this week, although my earlier-in-the-week usage was lighter than usual).

I'm loving 4.7. I was loving 4.6 too. I use Codex to get code reviews done on Claude-generated code but have no interest in using it as my daily driver.

If external, aren't they pricey? How much tokens they generate?

If local, what runs on such hardware that gives reasonable results?

More to the point, nobody wants to be more efficient for the sake of being efficient, we all want to go to work, do our metaphorical 9 to 5 without consuming too much (intellectual and not only) energy, and then back home. In that regard AI is seen as an existential threat to that "lifestyle" and it will be treated as such by regular workers.

> It ended up requiring a few hundred lines of Python

And she knows those a hundred lines of python work correctly and give her correct result because in this instance Claude managed to produce a working result. What if it didn't? Would vague knowledge of Python have helped her?

> It won't be trivial, but I do think there's a big opportunity for whoever can translate the experience we're having with agentic coding to a non-technical audience.

Even though I agree with the sentiment, we've tried non-coding coding how many times now? Once every 5 years? Throwing LLMs into the mix won't help much when in the end you leave the end user hanging, debugging problems and hunting for solutions.

You'll cause mild panic in a sizable share of people under 30 if you call them without a warning text.

Fully agree about phone calls though.

In particular there was some prior art that I found for doing it from the OpenQwaQ project, which was a GPLv2 3D virtual world project in Squeak/Smalltalk started by Alan Kay[1] back in 2011.

If I recall correctly, it worked well for native apps, but didn't work well for Chromium/Electron apps because they would use an API for grabbing the global mouse position rather than reading coordinates from events.

[0]: https://github.com/antimatter15/microtask/blob/master/cocoa/... [1]: https://github.com/OpenFora/openqwaq/blob/189d6b0da1fb136118...

/s

All of my friends who would die before they use AI 2 years ago now call themselves AI/agentic engineers because the money is there. Many of them don't understand a thing about AI or agents, but CC/Codex/Cursor can cover up for a lot.

Consequently, if Claude Code/"coding agents" is a hot topic (which it is), people who know nothing about any of this will start raising money and writing articles about it, even (especially) if it has nothing to do with code, because these people know nothing about code, so they won't realize what they're saying makes no sense. And it doesn't matter, because money.

Next thing you know your grandma will be "writing code" because that's what the marketing copy says. That's all it takes for the zeitgeist to shift for the term "code". It will soon mean something new to people who had no idea what code was before, and infuriating to people who do know (but aren't trying to sell you something).

I know that's long-winded but hopefully you get where I'm coming from :D.

> Yet, somehow, I'm quite confident you're not an AI.

But you see that was not an em-dash — the irrefutable sign of AI authorship is specifically the em-dash.

Edit: as in, I hear them use it, not as in, I was told that

Personally I run several agents. At minimum Codex and Claude, so they cross-check each other. Exactly to avoid what you describe. Duplicate functions or "tests all pass" when nothing was implemented is the kind of thing a second model, reading the diff with fresh eyes, tends to flag immediately.

But it takes coordination and solid skills + rules to make it work. Tomorrow's battle -> AI skillers.

That's a rather trivial consideration though. The real cost of code is not really writing it out to begin with, it's overwhelmingly the long-term maintenance. You should strive to use AI as a tool to make your code as easy as possible to understand and maintain, not to just write mountains of terrible slop-quality code.

- whatsapp/signal encryption was broken without anyone noticing all in order to nab... some guy posting pictures of bomb damage

- someone snitched and the govt lied

> I think I have an almost complete knowledge of all the attack vectors.

That's exactly the kind of hybris where the maximum danger lies.

the attack surface is so wide idk where to start.

LLMS are good at "find me a two week vacation two months from now"?

Or at "do my taxes"?

> how to use Cowork.

Yes, and I taught my mom how to use Apple Books, and have to re-teach her every time Apple breaks the interface.

Ask your non-tech friends what they do with and how they feel about Cowork in a few weeks.

> I think where our view differs is I expect that models will be able to get good at making custom interfaces, and then help the user personalize it to their tasks.

How many users you see personalizing anything to their task? Why would they want every app to be personalized? There's insane value in consistency across apps and interfaces. How will apps personalize their UIs to every user? By collecting even more copious amounts of user data?

Be careful what you wish for, this is going to be a double edged sword like YouTube is. YouTube allowed regular people without money and industry connections to make all sorts of quality, niche content. But for every bit of great content, there’s 1000 times as much garbage and outright misleading shit.

Giving people without any clue how computing works the ability to create software that interfaces with the outside world is likewise going to create some great stuff and 1000 times as much buggy and dangerous stuff. And allow untold numbers of scammers with no technical skill the ability to scam the wider world.

People on HN are seriously delusional.

AI removed the need to know the syntax. Your grandma does not know JS but can one shot a React app. Great!

Software engineering is not and has never been about the syntax or one shotting apps. Software engineering is about managing complexity at a level that a layman could not. Your ideal word requires an AI that's capable of reasoning at 100k-1 million lines of code and not make ANY mistakes. All edge cases covered or clarified. If (when) that truly happens, software engineering will not be the first profession to go.

Indeed. Just spoke to a buddy, he's got some electronics knowledge, he's been code-curious but never gotten past very simple bash scripts and Excel sheets (vlookup etc to drive calculations).

He got himself a Claude subscription and has now implemented a non-trivial Arduino project, involving multiple CAN-bus modules and an interactive, dynamic web interface to control all this. The web interface detects the CAN-bus modules and populates the web interface based on that, and allows him to adjust the control logic.

It's a project he's had in his head for a few years and now was able to realize on his own (modulo Claude).

Do you mean that you can just AXUIElementPerformAction once you have a reference to it and the OS will internally synthesize the right type of event, even if it's not in the foreground?

And weirdly enough, a Task like sorting a file with data in it, if you are not a professional, windows offers very if not non single way of doing this. You would need to understand file types, understand that csv can be imported for excel, you need excel, than you need to understand excel how to sort stuff in it.

The ffirst thing I do in Excel is select the pseudo table and click on table -> insert to make it a sortable / real table. I showed this to every one in my Team full of studied CS people because non of them knew this.

what I believe is that laymen will put all their tax docs into codex and tell it to 'do their taxes' and the tool will decide to implement the calculator, do the taxes and present only the final numbers. the layman won't even know there was a calculator implemented.

  > getting the knowledge out of their head and into yours

  > People ask the computer to do things, and the computer builds programs and integrations between programs that....do the thing!

My career is pivoting from writing software to cleaning up other people's vibe-coded software.

I actually love the vibe-coding movement as it makes custom software available to more people, and also extends my own career as I pivot to clean up the messes.

I think most people are going to say they dont want it. I mean, why would anyone want a tool that can screw up their bank account? What benefit does it gain them?

Theres lots of cases of great highly useful LLM tools, but the moment they scale up you get slammed by the risks that stick out all along the long tail of outcomes.

The model will get full access to your data, but in the name of security, you will only be permitted to have data that is cloud-hosted; local storage will effectively just be cache.

The era of the general computer will end, and the products you purchased from these companies will be nonconsensually altered and limited.

I'm so glad I switched to Linux more than a decade ago. At least on the PC there will still be an open source ecosystem for a long time to come, it may have less features but I'm willing to accept that.

Knowing that they can change what you bought overnight with a single nonconsensual update, think very, very carefully about who you purchase all of your future technology from. Google's upcoming nonconsensual degradation of Android should be a lesson for everybody.

The concerning aspect is how others' content being scanned into systems don't have any knowledge or consent. Having private PII/files/code/emails/etc being read and/or accidentally shared by the agent online.

Honestly, it's alright.

Just think of what we could do with computers up until this point. We keep all those abilities.

And more, even, because the industry still keeps churning out new local LLMs. So you even gain more capabilities than right now. Just not at the rate of the bleeding edge.

Which is just like the Linux desktop, essentially. It's fine, really. There is no need to consume the bleeding edge. You will be fine.

As a proud neo-luddite, I'm watching the AI hype with grim amusement and I'll tell you hwhat, it doesn't look like a good time. Even putting to one side the planetary scale economic crash that is incoming, all the hypers seem to be on some sort of treadmill that is out of their control and it simply doesn't look like fun.

If you remove the effort from those tasks, they will have no value.

10x the value of 0 is 0

The typical work week today is 40 hours. Just like it was 80 years ago. The typical worker is dramatically more productive than 80 years ago yet "doing whatever the fuck I want" time has not increased. Why would it? Employers don't need to pay such that 20 hour work weeks give you the same income. Because everybody around you is ok with working 40 hours.

This won't be different with AI, no matter if the overall effect is 1.1x or 10x or 100x productivity. Because it's not a technological problem but a sociological one.

> I’ve seen a number of your posts where you talk about topics you clearly are not all that well versed in, with such confidence when you’re plain wrong.

I'm sure it's true. However, since you brought it up, can you be more specific and name three?