That being say, I really like the idea of committing our prompts. I can see a possible future in which that would be our work: write precise specs so that you can generate the program again with an other model, in an other programming language, and get the same behavior. Which sounds a hell lot like… a RFC. :)

We may be the culprit here, by the way. Maybe the only thing missing is us taking "prompt engineering" more seriously. It would be specification writing, really, or protocol design. I think it might already be possible, from an experience I had. I made Codex write a POSIX vi implementation from POSIX ex/vi specs. It took it a week-end, but I now have a POSIX vi, with only added on top multilevel undo/redo and syntax coloration, and without the baggage and instability of nvi2, I'm an happy man. I've been using it for more than a month and still have to find a fault to its POSIX implementation (and there are _a lot_ of details in POSIX vi specs). I think models are already there, when it comes to implemented behavior predictability, it's just us who are not precise enough in our specifications.

Not to mention the "yes, there's a bug. We opened a ticket to the maintainer. Now we wait".

That being said, it's true than we can assume most of new software are generated. No need for hyperbole on that. An interesting fact is that it makes grandfather's concern moot: people who are generating their code don't care much if a dependency goes unmaintained, they can have it replaced by an other one in matter of minutes.

There's an other objection to openai-cli we could raise, though: why use a generalist developer tool, containing probably hundred of features we don't need, when we could make a bespoke specialized version, perfectly fit to us, in like 25 minutes? I can get that there are audiences where this would not even come to mind to the users, but we're talking about a developer tool, here. The value of that is questionable. And ironically, those who might from benefit it the most are those who don't want to generate their code.

OpenAI trains a model for cybersecurity, tells it it's allowed to do pentesting, then when the model does just that to fullfill the assignment it was given, OpenAI screams that "the AI escaped the sandbox", leveraging decades of AI fantasy in fiction works to make general audience react. Why? Because it pushes their bottom line. They've been at it for months, now. They see openweight and Chinese models being very close to them in the benchmarks, and want to "solve" the problem the same way banks did: through regulatory capture. It amazes me that the press is just relying their fearmongering without stopping to wonder: "wait, why are the main producers of AI warning us about how dangerous AI is?". The reason of course is that they want regulation, because regulations are a wall not many can climb. The higher the wall, the safer your moat as a first mover big company is.

And of course, Nvidia's bottom line is the exact opposite. They need as many AI companies competing as possible, so they all buy GPUs. So they insert themselves into the same narrative with the same kind of bullshit. You've all seen those movies in which the robot goes mad once their safety chip has been removed, right? Well, we're building one, problem solved! … except that "chip" is basically just a browser trying to block the AI to access what it shouldn't. How? They don't say. It would be quite comical if they used a small model to be the judge of that.