Do software engineers here feel threatened by this? I certainly am. I'm surprised that this topic is almost entirely missing in these threads.
I would feel threatened if I didn't invest in learning how to best use AI
GPT-5.3-Codex
291–300 of 634 posts
Re: GPT-5.3-Codex
#292Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, these benchmarks are bogus. Every new model overfits to the latest overhyped benchmark. Someone should take this to a logical extreme and train a tiny model that scores better on a specific benchmark.
All shared machine learning benchmarks are a little bit bogus, for a really “machine learning 101” reason: your test set only yields an unbiased performance metric if you agree to only use it once. But that just isn’t a realistic way to use a shared benchmark. Using them repeatedly is kind of the whole point. But even an imperfect yardstick is better than no yardstick at all. You’ve just got to remember to maintain a…
Is an imperfect yardstick better than no yardstick? It reminds me of documentation — the only thing worse than no documentation is wrong documentation.
Re: GPT-5.3-Codex
#293Do software engineers here feel threatened by this? I certainly am. I'm surprised that this topic is almost entirely missing in these threads.
AI is mostly garbage at creating useful abstractions. I'd feel threatened if I was a competitive programmer or IMO kid
Re: GPT-5.3-Codex
#294Earlier quoted context omitted.
More importantly, this is the early steps of a model self improving itself. Do we still think we'll have soft take off?
> Do we still think we'll have soft take off? There's still no evidence we'll have any take off. At least in the "Foom!" sense of LLMs independently improving themselves iteratively to substantial new levels being reliably sustained over many generations. To be clear, I think LLMs are valuable and will continue to significantly improve. But self-sustaining runaway positive feedback loops delivering exponential improv…
Yes, but also you'll never have any early evidence of the Foom until the Foom itself happens.
Re: GPT-5.3-Codex
#295I want to recompile a Rust project to be f32 instead of f64. Am I better off buying 1 month of Codex, Claude, or Antigravity? I want to have the agent continuesly recompile and fix compile errors on loop until all the bugs from switching to f32 are gone.
Literally just find and replace
Re: GPT-5.3-Codex
#296AI designed websites are so easy to spot that I need to actively design my UI so that it doesn't look AI
Re: GPT-5.3-Codex
#297Whats interesting to me is that these gpt-5.3 and opus-4.6 are diverging philosophically and really in the same way that actual engineers and orgs have diverged philosophically With Codex (5.3), the framing is an interactive collaborator: you steer it mid-execution, stay in the loop, course-correct as it works. With Opus 4.6, the emphasis is the opposite: a more autonomous, agentic, thoughtful system that plans deepl…
I'm personally 100% convinced (assuming prices stay reasonable) that the Codex approach is here to stay. Having a human in the loop eliminates all the problems that LLMs have and continously reviewing small'ish chunks of code works really well from my experience. It saves so much time having Codex do all the plumbing so you can focus on the actual "core" part of a feature. LLMs still (and I doubt that changes) can't…
I'm personally 100% convinced of the opposite, that it's a waste of time to steer them. we know now that agentic loops can converge given the proper framing and self-reflectiveness tools.
Re: GPT-5.3-Codex
#298Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just some anecdata++ here but I found 5.2 to be really good at code review. So I can have something crunched by cheaper models, reviewed async by codex and then re-prompt with the findings from the review. It finds good things, doesn't flag nits (if prompted not to) and the overall flow is worth it for me. Speed loss doesn't impact this flow that much.
Personally, I have Claude do the coding. Then 5.2-high do the reviewing.
I have Opus 4.5 do everything then review it with Gemini 3.
Re: GPT-5.3-Codex
#299Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then I pass the review back to Claude Opus to implement it.
Just curious is this a manual process or you guys have automated these steps?
zen-mcp (now called pal-mcp I think) and then claude code can actually just pass things to gemini (or any other model)
Re: GPT-5.3-Codex
#300Earlier quoted context omitted.
More importantly, this is the early steps of a model self improving itself. Do we still think we'll have soft take off?
Exponential growth may look like a very slow increase at first, but it's still exponential growth.
If it's exponential growth. It may just as well be some slow growth and continue to be so.