Posted by whimblepop 4 hours ago
The recent terminal UI changes were more fastidious, but even those are easily disabled with CODEX_TUI_DISABLE_KEYBOARD_ENHANCEMENT=1 and the /tui command.
I think that's exactly the standpoint of Yann LeCun.
> The progress using narrowly intelligent algorithms to drive cars in a generalizable way was not as fast as the early gains in places the narrow algorithms could solve, thus the progress in using generally intelligent algorithms for any other field must also slow down.
Man, is this how 99% of the population works? They have a heuristic for anything that sounds computer sciencey and apply it for anything and everything that sounds similar without bothering to check if their heuristic actually applies?
> I’m reminded of
They were drawing a comparison, not saying "x will definitely happen because y"
The breathless astroturf articles, the brain-dead talking head conversations, the endless flood of obvious misinformation about industry uptake, the nauseating LinkedIn puff-pieces about PREPARING YOUR ENTERPRISE OR ELSE... it's a hostile information economy at best, and its being driven by the same people who brought you bullshit like self-driving, crypto and the Metaverse... for the exact same reasons (to get rich).
There's no epistemic credibility left in the tech industry in general. Maybe the Dario's or whoevers of the world believed what they were talking about at one point, but I don't believe a single word I read from Anthropic or OpenAI for the same reason I don't believe anything I read from Russian state media. I know it's being produced for reasons that have nothing to do with the truth.
As someone who interacts with the technology on a daily basis at a non-trivial level... I'm not seeing anything that would cure my skepticism about GenAI. The information economy surrounding it is broken. The fundamentals don't line up. The hype about "nearby capabilities" is identical to the hype of generations after generations of hype in the AI space (dating at least back to Turing). It smells like a bad bet.
I’m in the process of dumping codex for more open harnesses that don’t add problematic new features every week. Because Anthropic insists that I have to use their harness with the subscription, eventually I’m either going to wrap `claude -p` to get away from the crappy TUI or else I’ll just unsubscribe and use other models. Their bad UX has alienated me as a paying customer.
Listed a few in my other comment
Like of course codex is the most powerful and "just" run `npx blah blah` but no, I'm not running randomly piped code on my personal computer and even if I didn't care about privacy it means I can only run this locally with my laptop on. "leave your laptop on and access from your phone" is not a good idea. It only adds to the surface area of confusion. Ux no good.
Went too far? Oops, it's not accessible from the Claude Code UI anymore! You can get the agent to dredge up the info from the session logs, but you'd better hope they put the pieces together correctly.
Also, you can't rewind to a steering message. Want to make sure you can rewind to it? Wait for the agent to settle, or stop them, enter your message, and hope you don't throw them off their current train of thought.
To see a proper rewind UI, see how Pi does it: Every message is available, forked conversation history is preserved. It has its own issues, but is miles ahead of Claude Code in this regard.
And so many more. I tried codex and it was lacking in many UX aspects. Remember we got from a text-paragraph-only terminal to this at breakneck speed.
Eg - I asked for a recipe and it says leave x for y time - there's actually deeplinks that link to your clock timer with the time preset! And to change quantities, there's input boxes in the response that update all quantities accordingly.
Many such cases of use-case specific UX
This is partly due to the multiplicative scaling factor -- the number of tokens; the number of transformer layers; the number of features; etc.
I suspect that for models to have a step upgrade either/both of 1) a new/improved architecture model; and 2) better training of smaller parameter models are needed. I say the latter as I think that with the larger weights there is a lot of unused/redundant parameters.
I think newer models are more likely to produce the usuable output, almost always, but its still not great. The frequency in which you get usable results leads one to believe that quality is improving.. No usability is improving but the result is still meh.
Also put an llm in an environment without an lsp or compiler to check against and let me know how capable you think they are on their own. The "loop" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here.
https://finance.yahoo.com/sectors/healthcare/articles/godfat...
Progress is spiky and not guaranteed. The capital costs have also ballooned to the point where the rate has to level out
That's a pretty bold use of "has to". None of the financing behind AI seems sane, yet it continues to defy rational expectations. Reminds me of the comment "the market can remain irrational longer than you can stay solvent". It's not the exact meaning but has the same feeling. The circular financing going on does not help anything either
We don't see any indication that the LLM companies are slowing down and go for better code.
Instead it just looks like a cash grab until the AI bubble bursts.
in the last 2 weeks or so: - scrolling stopped working - subagents no longer work (main agent doesn't get notified when they finish) - subagents don't work (a subagent can't make its own agent even if instructed to do so)
what's going on? I thought coding was solved?
That is exactly why it is so bad. Tokens spent generate code. Large amounts of code is a liability.
But maybe being able to code up a feature at the drop of a hat has turbo-charged their ability to make bad UX decisions.
The latter requires modifying existing, badly architectured and tightly coupled code that will almost definitely break something somewhere else if touched, so what do you do? Just keep adding new code on top and hope for the best.
This is not a new phenomenon by any means, but AI amplifies it by 100x.
I use nixos and use a little wrapper that wraps Codex CLI in Docker. Run codex-box /path/to/project and it starts or reuses a container with only that project bind-mounted, keeping login and history in a separate volume. It uses tmux for detaching and reattaching
https://gist.github.com/entropie/8f30b9e33e9412fda3adf2f7507...
Maybe thats just the tool nerd in me that just wants the perfect tool for every job.
The thing that really validated this point was when I recently tried Codex again. Out of the box it was OK, but not great. I swung over the memory apparatus and had it import directives from my existing Claude install and it was almost immediately quite useful in its own right and, especially, as a counterpoint to Claude when dealing with some fairly complex operational issues.
This blogpost describes a similar thing: https://bxt.rs/blog/easy-sandboxing-on-linux-with-bubblewrap...
You install an update. Oops, they added a sandbox that doesn't work inside a docker container, it's stopped working.
You install an update. Oops, you can't log in inside a docker container any more, it's stopped working.
You install an update. Oops, they started catching the copy+paste shortcut and replaced it with one that doesn't work.
You revert a broken update. Oops, the update changed the format of your login details, the old version can't read them, gotta log in again.
You install an update. Oops, can't scroll with the mouse wheel any more.
Not showstopping bugs (if you're used to persuading broken oauth logins to work) but it certainly makes updating an "ugh, what have they broken this time?" experience.
The problem is hardly anyone gives a shit if they can pump out stuff that makes them look like they are good at stuff.
Vanity before engineering.
We were overbuilding trivial parts of the software like the Romans overbuilt small bridges.
Modern engineering is about making the thing that barely works. If you disagree, learn a little bit about bit narrow the tolerances of modern cars and bridges are.
Buildings typically use a safety factor of 1.5 to 2.0, and cars typically use a safety factor of 2.0 to 3.0. These things are being built twice as strong as they need to be. I wouldn't call that narrow.
And with software, we're at a point where it can't even properly do what it needs to. If we were overbuilding it, damn software wouldn't crash so much.
Not even close.
For example, a BMW X5 weighs about 2200 Kgs without passengers, and it's GVWR is 2800 Kgs.
If you have five people and heavy bags, you can comfortably exceed the GVWR. You can absolutely break control arms and suspension components in that scenario if you go over a speed bump or hit a pothole (which are real things that exist in the real world, like people doing something unintended and crashing software).
If this needed a 2x safety factor, there would have been no way to build this car.
Even the toughest cars like land cruisers are limited in this way.
> [...] vs something that's rickety
A 100 percent of modern bridges are rickety. There has been dozens of high profile incidents because of this.
> Just because you built something that might fall apart at any moment doesn't mean it's been engineered with narrow tolerances.
Here the software they are building falls apart in ..say.. two days of use, but can be updated in 5 seconds at close to zero marginal cost. The software is useful enough that people keep updating and using it. This iteration gives them a competitive advantage over the safer choice of rigorously testing every new thing for several weeks.
The same story for Google's products - their products were always buggy even before AI. And so is the case for Microsoft.
I think the reasonable argument is that AI or not, software problems are hard problems to solve. And software is constantly evolving. AI isn't a magic wand. It also depends a lot on the humans using it, including prompting and context supplied to it.
Drawing a massive conclusion from a tiny, unrepresentative sample is just hasty generalization.
Given how rare it was previously, and how little it was cultivated by shortsighted management, I’m not surprised with all the slop we see today.
The truth is there’s nothing stopping someone from using these tools to remove dead code, simplify project structure, remove dependencies, etc. but I don’t see it happening very often. I have done it a bunch myself though so it’s absolutely possible, it’s all a matter of investment and prioritization.
it's embarrassing when every claude code release has obvious bugs in it like telling you to upgrade when you're on the latest version or codex opening visible powershell windows for every command that pop up on your screen
like 5 minutes of human testing would catch this obvious shit but obviously they don't bother because vibes are the future and stuff? idk
Legit bugs still open 6 months on.. It's a bit ironic
We considered the daemon thing, but ended up with a hard-update check on every boot. It's thus a user choice: if you don't like the automatic updating, you can just not run the application anymore.
And even with all that, it's hard to stay on the right side of AV algorithms, etc.
We wrote about it here: https://tritium.legal/blog/update
That's not a choice. It s just what most apps do these days, but it's the first time I've seen anyone stating this so directly, or trying to frame it as a choice.
(And behaviorally, this makes your product just a SaaS website with extra steps.)
[Edit: yes, that is kind of the idea. Native version has better features because it can access them.]
~/.codex/config.toml
[features]
daemon_auto_start = false
codex() {
command codex --no-daemon "${@:-.}"
}