—-

“Models scored all 4,487 photos. NIMA rewards technical craft (sharpness, composition), LAION rewards emotional/aesthetic appeal, MUSIQ is more general quality. Combined: 0.4 NIMA + 0.3 LAION + 0.3 MUSIQ, deduped at 0.85 CLIP similarity.

Interesting: the models wildly disagreed on some shots — one photo ranked NIMA #2 globally but LAION #4313.”

All earnesty aside, OpenAI’s oddly specific singular focus on “intelligence per token” (also in the benchmarks) that literally noone else pushes so hard eerily reminds me of Apple’s Macbook anorexia era pre-M1. One metric to chase at the cost of literally anything else. GPT-5.3+ are some of the smartest models out there and could be a pleasure to work with, if they weren’t lazy bastards to the point of being completely infuriating.

"INTERCAL has many other features designed to make it even more aesthetically unpleasing to the programmer: it uses statements such as "READ OUT", "IGNORE", "FORGET", and modifiers such as "PLEASE". This last keyword provides two reasons for the program's rejection by the compiler: if "PLEASE" does not appear often enough, the program is considered insufficiently polite, and the error message says this; if it appears too often, the program could be rejected as excessively polite. Although this feature existed in the original INTERCAL compiler, it was undocumented.[7]"

— https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INTERCAL

I literally wasn’t able to convince the model to WORK, on a quick, safe and benign subtask that later GLM, Kimi and Minimax succeeded on without issues. Had to kick OpenAI immediately unfortunately.

For reference, here's all the Agile you need, it's 4 sentences:

Individuals and interactions over processes and tools

Working software over comprehensive documentation

Customer collaboration over contract negotiation

Responding to change over following a plan

The real problem is that capital-A Agile is not agile at all, but exactly the opposite: A fat process that enforces following a plan (regular, rigid meeting structure), creating comprehensive documentation (user stories, specs, mocks, task board) and contract negotiation (estimation meetings, planning poker). It's a bastardization of the original idea, born by process first people who tried to copy the methods of successful teams without understanding them.

The failure modes were multiple: - Facts rarely exist in a vacuum but have lots of subtlety - Inferring facts from conversation has a gazillion failure modes, especially irony and sarcasm lead to hilarious outcomes (joking about a sixpack with a fat buddy -> "XYZ is interested in achieving an athletic form"), but even things as simple as extracting a concrete date too often go wrong - Facts are almost never as binary as they seem. "ABC has the flights booked for the Paris trip". Now I decided afterwards to continue to New York to visit a friend instead of going home and completely stumped the agent.

Also, it's based on 2021 (or before) storage cost figures, which have halved in the meantime. https://assets.bbhub.io/professional/sites/44/LCOE-11.png

I call BS.

All of that fully decentralized, within the next years instead of decades, with distributed (not megacorp) ownership AND not having every other of these megaprojects cancelled due to protests.

And that figure doesn't even include externalized cost like national/environmental security or decommissioning costs.

Nuclear is riding a dead horse in 2026.

The correct answer is: ALWAYS lie about your past compensation. It's the only way to get forward, one way or the other.

Getting rid of radiologists is as much nonsense and saber rattling as suggesting using AI would harm patients.

The answer is clearly just the same as in software development or any other AI impacted field: Let the best professionals handle 10x+ the volume. What that means for all the rest of employees is the question of the century though...