Because it's not an either or thing. Neither is sufficient. I'd argue that, expenses aside, you should have every model you have access to cross reviewing the work of the others.

Outside of super trivial things that I should have just done myself, I have a cross-model review of _everything_ these days. The tokens are too cheap not to.

It's not. Idk about who has more T's but, unfortunately, DS4 pro is not a match to Opus, at least not Opus 4.8.

Uh, no. His argument is that the ~10% or so superiority you're fighting so hard to claim is no longer enough to have dominate sway over the overall outcome. Other factors, not random.

Pi has been great in this role, as well as occasional use not as a sub-agent but by my own human hands when I want to interact with the Composer 2.5 model directly... which I do much less these days as I just use Codex 5.5 /fast. Pi's great though.

Resuming it cost 5% of the current session and 1% of the weekly session on a max subscription.

Love the product. <3

Have you seen the price tag on some of the US jets? Are they not doing just this?

Despite this thing I made being rather useless in the grand scheme of things it was _wildly_ illuminating in terms of my understanding of electricity and the various objects around me and how they function. Which has spurred another rabbit hole that is having _real measurable effect_ for a host of feral cats to live a more comfortable life. (Not the wheel generator thing)

> a machine told you what to do and you did it, like coloring by numbers - it doesn't make you an artist.

I never claimed to be an artist ;) And, maybe it's different for you, but someone or something showing me how to do something is quite literally the best way for me to learn. /shrug

> I have to doubt that. If you were all those things, you would have been able to complete that project with very little effort, and without a machine telling you what to do.

I love that for you.

When I've had repeated issues with a feature/task on existing code often times it really helps to first have the model analyze the code and recommend 'optimizations' - whether or not you agree/accept, it'll give you some insight on the approach it _wants_ to take. Adjust from there.

Arguably, I'm getting somewhere.. ;)

The whole point is that it is amateur hour and it's wildly effective as a learning tool.

The fact it derived everything from things that have been done... yea, that's also the point? What point are you trying to make here? I'm well aware it's not a great tool if you're trying to use it to create novel things... but I'm not a nuclear physicist. I'm a builder, fixer, tinkerer who happens to make a living writing code. I use it to teach me how to do things, I use it to analyze problems and recommend approaches that I can then delve into myself.

I'm not asking it to fold proteins. (I guess that's been done quite a bit too, so would be amateur as well)