The labs are betting on there being more applications for stronger models and that many existing applications will continue to need stronger models to keep up with competitors.

As sibling mentions it is indeed labeled and not just some icon. People just refer to the orange cloud UI for it for convenience and because it makes it easy to spot whether you have it on or not.

But regarding the icon, the icon is their company logo, it really is the primary feature. It's also not like you have to go find it in settings to turn it off after adding DNS record, it's part of the form when you add the record (default on, yes), and it's prominent when viewing the record.

It can further be true that some developers are getting 5x or 10x while as a whole their organization is sped up less than 2x. I'm sure many tasks at Anthropic are sped up 5x or 10x or more.

It can further be the case that many people overestimate their gains as well. That's fine, and I think what you're saying - but it's still wild to shake your head and go "pfft, they have not even doubled their productivity". Double is a lot!

I find it hard to imagine launching this criticism at a new technology.

I still think Go is a very excellent choice but I have switched to, of all things, AssemblyScript within a Rust host. I've been very happy with it - surprisingly so. Compile time is a major drawback of course.

Personally I think this is a bad characterization of using LLMs to fix up LLMs because while you can never guarantee results this way (as the quoted line claims here, which is worthy of criticism), it is, in practice, useful to use LLMs on top of LLMs. And there's no infinite regress. Auto-mode in Claude Code, for example, seems to me like it's been successful at making the system more safe than --dangerously-bypass-permissions without prompting the user for permissions constantly.

> What purpose could this behavior serve, other than cyber attacks and whatnot?

Math and science research?

Heck, even just basic coding, there's a history of models going "This is too big; I'll save the rest for later" / "This is two weeks of work, here's just some parts of it" (for something it could complete in a half hour) / "I don't have enough context left to complete this task, so I'll stop here". Or worse, just putting fallbacks in or stub tests and not mentioning it didn't do all the work that was prompted.

I think 5.6 Sol, especially in combination with /goal but also without, is the first model I've seen choose some insane direction and just doggedly pursue it. Failing to complete achievable goals has always been the much bigger problem.

I find Opus 5 with /goal will do exactly what you said, say "I'm not sure how to proceed next", even though the harness is making it continue, and it will repeatedly loop saying it's not going to make progress until it gets an answer on how to proceed. In my experience the cases have been pretty reasonable, but also still ones where I wish it had done more.

And I can do even better than that if I design the codebase specifically with LLM coding in mind, making choices that make it hard or impossible for the LLM to make certain categories of error it tends to make, and make it easier for the LLM to observe the results.

I think you're right that there isn't any that's any good right now, but that's beside the point that if that changes (or if that's wrong) then people mostly won't care.

> At least in the communities that I frequent (fantasy, sci-fi, horror)

I think if you are part of a "community" surrounding some genre, then you are probably exposed to an extremely non-representative subset of the population that consumes that genre.

I also tend to throw some huge tasks it can't do yet and watch it burn a zillion tokens, and I usually learn more about where it's limits are and am sometimes happily surprised by its success or partial success.

I'll infodump though.

I built https://wordpeek.app https://scramble-quest.app and https://playsilhouette.app this year. Those are what I've shipped anyway, a number of others too that didn't ship (I did game rules and basic clients for 7 other existing multiplayer games, and another prototype.)

Out of frustration with some stuff I've tried to build my own game framework. There's four totally separate threads I'm trying to pull together with this

1) I want all my games to work really well on web even though they are generally targeted at either mobile or PC, but it is very valuable to have early builds runnable on a website, hopefully from a phone too. I feel like I have something good here.

2) I do a lot of turn based games and strategy games. I have a rules engine framework setup that I really like and I feel makes it almost impossible for an LLM to write the bad code it loves to write where game state and UI are intermixed, or game action timing can be problematic, stuff like that. As an added bonus I get multiplayer trivially, I get replays trivially, and I get game rules tests trivial to write. I love what I have set up here.

3) I have an xml/css-based UI that is intended to make it hard for the LLM to write bad UI code, which it will still do even though it can't intermix game state in with it due to #2. I do not have something good here right now. What I have has bad performance and memory characteristics.

4) I am fascinated by the idea of shipping software that can customize and edit itself. I have built in agent harness, built in image and audio asset generation, a built in git repo. This all works in the web and it can edit the game live! And when run locally can shell out to your claude code and codex. However this whole bullet point is all not very good, I still just use claude code/codex directly for everything.

I don't really have anything to show here, but it doesn't expose any of the stuff I mention above. It does however have a full port of the game Spectromancer to my engine - https://nanogame.app/ - and I am presently having it try to write a responsive UI for it (this is very broken at the moment but it is making progress.)