Look at it through a few different lenses and you'll find plenty of reasons to think youtube is overall bad. People seem to love to retreat to the dishwasher repair instructions for some random old model, to try to defend modern youtube. those videos were all over youtube before it became a vile ad infested infinite scroll attention demanding app, and the product has been on a steep decline since the perverse incentives to chase attention by any means have been added.

The core of modern youtube in 2026, is a bunch of "creators" pumping out x amount of minutes per week or as often as per day, of low quality content dressed up in a video format to disguise how low quality it is, to their viewers that will click it and not realize how poorly crafted it is because its their main feed of information and that is their baseline. You can deflect this and say there is some high quality stuff, sure, but there is no way you can possibly say that the vast majority isn't absolute garbage, and that youtube isn't incentivized to keep people watching for as long as possible with no regard for which level of quality content they are watching.

Literally everyone i've talked to that defends youtube, accepts that they watch some absolute garbage at times, and deem it worthwhile for some reason. I have no understanding for why so many people are just content burning time watching actual garbage, when there is so much high quality stuff elsewhere.

Can think of almost any task, and there is that likelihood for some small issue to arise, and the person has to adjust to it. Ai for coding, now you just kinda say "i hit this issue", and its usually resolved, this removes the friction that feeds the feeling of accomplishment once you complete something.

But i do think, there is of course a separation of work and play, many modern video games are amazing at the dopamine style rollercoaster it seems like this article is hinting at missing. So i totally get it for personal projects, if its no longer fun because the dopamine roller coaster is dead, it kinda kills it for a lot of people. For work I don't know if it NEEDS to be there at all, ideally less friction makes for more work getting done, even if its less pleasant for the human involved.

I couldn't see myself continuing playing a game if all the happy dopamine was front loaded into the first 10 minutes.

I'd never wanna signal that AI interviews are at all acceptable. The bar should be equal amounts of human consideration on both sides, otherwise I would feel its likely disrespect to the value of the human forced to interact with AI instead. I'd also venture to guess that these tools are NOT good enough to pick up on anything besides transcripts, which leaves a TON of actual human context on the table.

I can see a world where they get better at that visual and cadence based context, but i just know its not there now, and these interviews are likely on some absurdly subpar model that is not close to up to that task.

In all likelihood its as painfully pathetic as ai transcribes the audio to text, and interprets the text without anything extra, then responds(not to say that it isn't impressive, its just largely worthless in exchange for human on human interviews).

I still wouldn't say im "happy" with the current state of things though, despite mostly fitting in that latter group. AI is still fairly tiring to interact with, and everything feels contested. If its not contested, it feels like putting almost anything out there... means it will become contested when certain people see it and decide "that is a solid idea", and just throw agents at mirroring it.

Tossed all my weekly usage for each provider at the top with their 5hour windows and such. its been great so far.

Haven't followed all that closely for some other games, but it very much seems like the model for NBA2k is to release a new game with some minor patches each year, charge 70$, then spend the majority of that year crafting patches for the card game to keep whales interested in constantly spending on new packs(which are promptly devalued on the next release, and straight up killing the prior year's game's online service, makes them entirely worthless the next year).

I say Bummer if more people adopt this style, its gonna become less and less authentic feeling as the months go on now.

The answer is likely moving away from the internet entirely and having actual face to face screening right away. no company wants to commit to that, so its gonna continue to be some weird expectation from both sides where the applicant doesnt wanna be screened with AI, and the hiring team wants X amount of effort put into every initial application.

I think it just must move entirely offline, until some semblance of an answer exists, because right now like i said, we can't even fathom what a solution looks like online.

Feel like any test nowadays should INCLUDE ai, but you likely just want insight into how they are getting from A to B. I don't wanna assume what you mean by cheating with AI, could be as simple as answering live questions with cheating software or whatever, which is obviously a huge issue. I wanna respond and say it should be expected for any take home type stuff, and be rolled into the expectations if anything, but that could be way off of what you mean.

both sides of the entire process is just a nightmare now, one side has all this noise to sift through, and the other side is pressured to mass apply because of all the competing noise they can't be seen through. I was listening to something about AI generated responses, and they seemed to have no empathy for the people who gave human responses, but used AI to give them an overview of the company and what it does for the question "why do you want to work at x?", and sorta mocked the person because they can tell they asked for a generic description of what the company does.

There has to be some give and take, initial applications if you are spending hours researching a single company, you are setting yourself up to be absurdly let down if that same company sends you an automated rejection within a day. A reasonable person will only do that so many times, before just giving up and waiting for the other side to be the first mover instead.

And ya i can go over that 240k limit, I still very seldom do, and try to treat it as the actual limit. I'm surprised to see so many people still talking about compaction to complete long running tasks, i think the bulk of the work should be somewhat frontloaded into a plan that is split off into subplans, then you can kinda open up a few options, one session with subagents for the subplans of the main plan, or just handoff prompts about progress against the main plan/relevant subplan. I just never trust the blackbox that is compaction, I feel its a recipe for disaster/context poison.

Its an agenda serving blog post, but constantly bringing it up like this is just obnoxious.

Releasing a new fable is an example of straight up vertical progress, releasing a more efficient preexisting opus that is more affordable is an example of horizontal progress, more efficient models rather than higher power models.

The blog post about slowing down is still just some weird self interested post, they want to govern themselves and impose distillation restrictions/gpu restrictions and used some weird blog post about slowing down and fear mongering as usual to justify it, its strange, but slowing down and stopping are not the same thing at all.

So in simple terms, OpenAI doesn't restrict you to Codex, and gives their blessing to try whatever you want with their models(besides serving others with your subscription usage, that is still afaik against tos).

So for that 20$ tier for the entire summer and into fall, i was on their 2nd class public model(4.8) released in May. Not surprisingly it became my grunt model, doing the simple work. By far the least I've used Anthropic models in the last 2 years.