<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Hacker News: ismayilkarimli</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=ismayilkarimli</link><description>Hacker News RSS</description><docs>https://hnrss.org/</docs><generator>hnrss v2.1.1</generator><lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Sep 2026 12:50:55 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hnrss.org/user?id=ismayilkarimli" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"></atom:link><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by ismayilkarimli in "GPT-6 Sol and Luna"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Not OP but here's my take on it.<p>> There's hardly any work you can think of which can't be done faster / beter with ai assistance<p>True, and someone needs to be the creative brain behind the decisions. AI can help you implement. When I say help, I mean literally help because one-shotting and vague prompts can get you only so far, usually with a lackluster result. While AI is good at analyzing solutions, and finding out holes in one's thinking, ultimately, it is some creative actor that needs to understand the bigger picture to evaluate trade-offs, understand scope creeps, and spot overengineered implementations. For now that actor is a human.<p>> If you have an anti-example, would like to hear.<p>In my personal experience, especially with greenfield projects, smarter models tend to overengineer the solutions. However, I haven't used Fable and Astra models, maybe they are better at creative tasks without overengineering.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 23 Sep 2026 07:21:10 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49812726</link><dc:creator>ismayilkarimli</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49812726</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49812726</guid></item></channel></rss>