Quotations
Filters: Sorted by date
My constant struggle is how to convince them that getting an education in the humanities is not about regurgitating ideas/knowledge that already exist. It’s about generating new knowledge, striving for creative insights, and having thoughts that haven’t been had before. I don’t want you to learn facts. I want you to think. To notice. To question. To reconsider. To challenge. Students don’t yet get that ChatGPT only rearranges preexisting ideas, whether they are accurate or not.
And even if the information was guaranteed to be accurate, they’re not learning anything by plugging a prompt in and turning in the resulting paper. They’ve bypassed the entire process of learning.
There's a new kind of coding I call "hype coding" where you fully give into the hype, and what's coming right around the corner, that you lose sight of whats' possible today. Everything is changing so fast that nobody has time to learn any tool, but we should aim to use as many as possible. Any limitation in the technology can be chalked up to a 'skill issue' or that it'll be solved in the next AI release next week. Thinking is dead. Turn off your brain and let the computer think for you. Scroll on tiktok while the armies of agents code for you. If it isn't right, tell it to try again. Don't read. Feed outputs back in until it works. If you can't get it to work, wait for the next model or tool release. Maybe you didn't use enough MCP servers? Don't forget to add to the hype cycle by aggrandizing all your successes. Don't read this whole tweet, because it's too long. Get an AI to summarize it for you. Then call it "cope". Most importantly, immediately mischaracterize "hype coding" to mean something different than this definition. Oh the irony! The people who don't care about details don't read the details about not reading the details
Speaking of the effects of technology on individuals and society as a whole, Marshall McLuhan wrote that every augmentation is also an amputation. [...] Today, quite suddenly, billions of people have access to AI systems that provide augmentations, and inflict amputations, far more substantial than anything McLuhan could have imagined. This is the main thing I worry about currently as far as AI is concerned. I follow conversations among professional educators who all report the same phenomenon, which is that their students use ChatGPT for everything, and in consequence learn nothing. We may end up with at least one generation of people who are like the Eloi in H.G. Wells’s The Time Machine, in that they are mental weaklings utterly dependent on technologies that they don’t understand and that they could never rebuild from scratch were they to break down.
— Neal Stephenson, Remarks on AI from NZ
soon we have another low-key research preview to share with you all
we will name it better than chatgpt this time in case it takes off
By popular request, GPT-4.1 will be available directly in ChatGPT starting today.
GPT-4.1 is a specialized model that excels at coding tasks & instruction following. Because it’s faster, it’s a great alternative to OpenAI o3 & o4-mini for everyday coding needs.
I designed Dropbox's storage system and modeled its durability. Durability numbers (11 9's etc) are meaningless because competent providers don't lose data because of disk failures, they lose data because of bugs and operator error. [...]
The best thing you can do for your own durability is to choose a competent provider and then ensure you don't accidentally delete or corrupt own data on it:
- Ideally never mutate an object in S3, add a new version instead.
- Never live-delete any data. Mark it for deletion and then use a lifecycle policy to clean it up after a week.
This way you have time to react to a bug in your own stack.
I did find one area where LLMs absolutely excel, and I’d never want to be without them:
AIs can find your syntax error 100x faster than you can.
They’ve been a useful tool in multiple areas, to my surprise. But this is the one space where they’ve been an honestly huge help: I know I’ve made a mistake somewhere and I just can’t track it down. I can spend ten minutes staring at my files and pulling my hair out, or get an answer back in thirty seconds.
There are whole categories of coding problems that look like this, and LLMs are damn good at nearly all of them. [...]
— Luke Kanies, AI Is Like a Crappy Consultant
Contributions must not include content generated by large language models or other probabilistic tools, including but not limited to Copilot or ChatGPT. This policy covers code, documentation, pull requests, issues, comments, and any other contributions to the Servo project. [...]
Our rationale is as follows:
Maintainer burden: Reviewers depend on contributors to write and test their code before submitting it. We have found that these tools make it easy to generate large amounts of plausible-looking code that the contributor does not understand, is often untested, and does not function properly. This is a drain on the (already limited) time and energy of our reviewers.
Correctness and security: Even when code generated by AI tools does seem to function, there is no guarantee that it is correct, and no indication of what security implications it may have. A web browser engine is built to run in hostile execution environments, so all code must take into account potential security issues. Contributors play a large role in considering these issues when creating contributions, something that we cannot trust an AI tool to do.
Copyright issues: [...] Ethical issues:: [...] These are harms that we do not want to perpetuate, even if only indirectly.
— Contributing to Servo, section on AI contributions
If Claude is asked to count words, letters, and characters, it thinks step by step before answering the person. It explicitly counts the words, letters, or characters by assigning a number to each. It only answers the person once it has performed this explicit counting step. [...]
If Claude is shown a classic puzzle, before proceeding, it quotes every constraint or premise from the person’s message word for word before inside quotation marks to confirm it’s not dealing with a new variant. [...]
If asked to write poetry, Claude avoids using hackneyed imagery or metaphors or predictable rhyming schemes.
— Claude's system prompt, via Drew Breunig
Microservices only pay off when you have real scaling bottlenecks, large teams, or independently evolving domains. Before that? You’re paying the price without getting the benefit: duplicated infra, fragile local setups, and slow iteration.
— Oleg Pustovit, Microservices Are a Tax Your Startup Probably Can’t Afford
But I’ve also had my own quiet concerns about what [vibe coding] means for early-career developers. So much of how I learned came from chasing bugs in broken tutorials and seeing how all the pieces connected, or didn’t. There was value in that. And maybe I’ve been a little protective of it.
A mentor challenged that. He pointed out that debugging AI generated code is a lot like onboarding into a legacy codebase, making sense of decisions you didn’t make, finding where things break, and learning to trust (or rewrite) what’s already there. That’s the kind of work a lot of developers end up doing anyway.
— Ashley Willis, What Even Is Vibe Coding?
That's it. I've had it. I'm putting my foot down on this craziness.
1. Every reporter submitting security reports on #Hackerone for #curl now needs to answer this question:
"Did you use an AI to find the problem or generate this submission?"
(and if they do select it, they can expect a stream of proof of actual intelligence follow-up questions)
2. We now ban every reporter INSTANTLY who submits reports we deem AI slop. A threshold has been reached. We are effectively being DDoSed. If we could, we would charge them for this waste of our time.
We still have not seen a single valid security report done with AI help.
Two things can be true simultaneously: (a) LLM provider cost economics are too negative to return positive ROI to investors, and (b) LLMs are useful for solving problems that are meaningful and high impact, albeit not to the AGI hype that would justify point (a). This particular combination creates a frustrating gray area that requires a nuance that an ideologically split social media can no longer support gracefully. [...]
OpenAI collapsing would not cause the end of LLMs, because LLMs are useful today and there will always be a nonzero market demand for them: it’s a bell that can’t be unrung.
[On using generative AI for work despite the risk of errors:]
- AI is helpful despite being error-prone if it is faster to verify the output than it is to do the work yourself. For example, if you're using it to find a product that matches a given set of specifications, verification may be a lot faster than search.
- There are many uses where errors don't matter, like using it to enhance creativity by suggesting or critiquing ideas.
- At a meta level, if you use AI without a plan and simply turn to AI tools when you feel like it, then you're unlikely to be able to think through risks and mitigations. It is better to identify concrete ways to integrate AI into your workflows, with known benefits and risks, that you can employ repeatedly.
You also mentioned the whole Chatbot Arena thing, which I think is interesting and points to the challenge around how you do benchmarking. How do you know what models are good for which things?
One of the things we've generally tried to do over the last year is anchor more of our models in our Meta AI product north star use cases. The issue with open source benchmarks, and any given thing like the LM Arena stuff, is that they’re often skewed toward a very specific set of uses cases, which are often not actually what any normal person does in your product. [...]
So we're trying to anchor our north star on the product value that people report to us, what they say that they want, and what their revealed preferences are, and using the experiences that we have. Sometimes these benchmarks just don't quite line up. I think a lot of them are quite easily gameable.
On the Arena you'll see stuff like Sonnet 3.7, which is a great model, and it's not near the top. It was relatively easy for our team to tune a version of Llama 4 Maverick that could be way at the top. But the version we released, the pure model, actually has no tuning for that at all, so it's further down. So you just need to be careful with some of these benchmarks. We're going to index primarily on the products.
— Mark Zuckerberg, on Dwarkesh Patel's podcast
When we were first shipping Memory, the initial thought was: “Let’s let users see and edit their profiles”. Quickly learned that people are ridiculously sensitive: “Has narcissistic tendencies” - “No I do not!”, had to hide it.
— Mikhail Parakhin, talking about Bing
Betting on mobile made all the difference. We're making a similar call now, and this time the platform shift is AI.
AI isn't just a productivity boost. It helps us get closer to our mission. To teach well, we need to create a massive amount of content, and doing that manually doesn't scale. One of the best decisions we made recently was replacing a slow, manual content creation process with one powered by AI. Without AI, it would take us decades to scale our content to more learners. We owe it to our learners to get them this content ASAP. [...]
We'll be rolling out a few constructive constraints to help guide this shift:
- We'll gradually stop using contractors to do work that AI can handle
- AI use will be part of what we look for in hiring
- AI use will be part of what we evaluate in performance reviews
- Headcount will only be given if a team cannot automate more of their work
- Most functions will have specific initiatives to fundamentally change how they work [...]
— Luis von Ahn, Duolingo all-hands memo, shared on LinkedIn
the last couple of GPT-4o updates have made the personality too sycophant-y and annoying (even though there are some very good parts of it), and we are working on fixes asap, some today and some this week.
We've been seeing if the latest versions of LLMs are any better at geolocating and chronolocating images, and they've improved dramatically since we last tested them in 2023. [...]
Before anyone worries about it taking our job, I see it more as the difference between a hand whisk and an electric whisk, just the same job done quicker, and either way you've got to check if your peaks are stiff at the end of it.
— Eliot Higgins, Bellingcat
I don’t have a “mission” for this blog, but if I did, it would be to slightly increase the space in which people are calm and respectful and care about getting the facts right. I think we need more of this, and I’m worried that society is devolving into “trench warfare” where facts are just tools to be used when convenient for your political coalition, and everyone assumes everyone is distorting everything, all the time.
Despite being rusty with coding (I don't code every day these days): since starting to use Windsurf / Cursor with the recent increasingly capable models: I am SO back to being as fast in coding as when I was coding every day "in the zone" [...]
When you are driving with a firm grip on the steering wheel - because you know exactly where you are going, and when to steer hard or gently - it is just SUCH a big boost.
I have a bunch of side projects and APIs that I operate - but usually don't like to touch it because it's (my) legacy code.
Not any more.
I'm making large changes, quickly. These tools really feel like a massive multiplier for experienced devs - those of us who have it in our head exactly what we want to do and now the LLM tooling can move nearly as fast as my thoughts!
I was against using AI for programming for a LONG time. It never felt effective.
But with the latest models + tools, it finally feels like a real performance boost
If you’re still holding out, do yourself a favor: spend a few focused hours actually using it
In some tasks, AI is unreliable. In others, it is superhuman. You could, of course, say the same thing about calculators, but it is also clear that AI is different. It is already demonstrating general capabilities and performing a wide range of intellectual tasks, including those that it is not specifically trained on. Does that mean that o3 and Gemini 2.5 are AGI? Given the definitional problems, I really don’t know, but I do think they can be credibly seen as a form of “Jagged AGI” - superhuman in enough areas to result in real changes to how we work and live, but also unreliable enough that human expertise is often needed to figure out where AI works and where it doesn’t.
— Ethan Mollick, On Jagged AGI
To me, a successful eval meets the following criteria. Say, we currently have system A, and we might tweak it to get a system B:
- If A works significantly better than B according to a skilled human judge, the eval should give A a significantly higher score than B.
- If A and B have similar performance, their eval scores should be similar.
Whenever a pair of systems A and B contradicts these criteria, that is a sign the eval is in “error” and we should tweak it to make it rank A and B correctly.
We (Jon and Zach) teamed up with the Harris Poll to confirm this finding and extend it. We conducted a nationally representative survey of 1,006 Gen Z young adults (ages 18-27). We asked respondents to tell us, for various platforms and products, if they wished that it “was never invented.” For Netflix, Youtube, and the internet itself, relatively few said yes to that question (always under 20%). We found much higher levels of regret for the dominant social media platforms: Instagram (34%), Facebook (37%), Snapchat (43%), and the most regretted platforms of all: TikTok (47%) and X/Twitter (50%).
— Jon Haidt and Zach Rausch, TikTok Is Harming Children at an Industrial Scale
Our hypothesis is that o4-mini is a much better model, but we'll wait to hear feedback from developers. Evals only tell part of the story, and we wouldn't want to prematurely deprecate a model that developers continue to find value in. Model behavior is extremely high dimensional, and it's impossible to prevent regression on 100% use cases/prompts, especially if those prompts were originally tuned to the quirks of the older model. But if the majority of developers migrate happily, then it may make sense to deprecate at some future point.
We generally want to give developers as stable as an experience as possible, and not force them to swap models every few months whether they want to or not.
— Ted Sanders, OpenAI, on deprecating o3-mini
I work for OpenAI. [...] o4-mini is actually a considerably better vision model than o3, despite the benchmarks. Similar to how o3-mini-high was a much better coding model than o1. I would recommend using o4-mini-high over o3 for any task involving vision.
— James Betker, OpenAI
The single most impactful investment I’ve seen AI teams make isn’t a fancy evaluation dashboard—it’s building a customized interface that lets anyone examine what their AI is actually doing. I emphasize customized because every domain has unique needs that off-the-shelf tools rarely address. When reviewing apartment leasing conversations, you need to see the full chat history and scheduling context. For real-estate queries, you need the property details and source documents right there. Even small UX decisions—like where to place metadata or which filters to expose—can make the difference between a tool people actually use and one they avoid. [...]
Teams with thoughtfully designed data viewers iterate 10x faster than those without them. And here’s the thing: These tools can be built in hours using AI-assisted development (like Cursor or Loveable). The investment is minimal compared to the returns.
— Hamel Husain, A Field Guide to Rapidly Improving AI Products
Slopsquatting -- when an LLM hallucinates a non-existent package name, and a bad actor registers it maliciously. The AI brother of typosquatting.
Credit to @sethmlarson for the name
Backticks are traditionally banned from use in future language features, due to the small symbol. No reader should need to distinguish
`from'at a glance.
— Steve Dower, CPython core developer, August 2024