The results of this poll has gotten me confused. I definitely thought it would sway much more favorably in the 2X direction across Pro 100/200/500 at the cost of bringing back 5h limits in order to smoothen the demand curve.

This really sucks. Maybe it is a good reason to reinvest in a good model picker with Jev now.

Hi, Tomorrow we are re-opening the Pro $200 subscriptions to new subscribers, but together with it we are also changing how we calculate the usage for it. In effect, if you do the math, it will net out at half the dollar in API spend compared to the old Pro $200 plan. Now that it's said, let me explain why this is happening and why you will still get more work done than if you were on the Pro $200 subscription one month ago. (a) We didn't want to compromise in other ways and are committing to not reintroducing the 5h limit, so that you can fully use the weekly usage when you want. (b) On the subscription, we guarantee that over time you always get more work done and with an increasing level of quality. This means that you will continue to get more value per dollar spent as a result of models getting more efficient and us passing down the improvements in the form of API price reductions. (c) We don't want to put an incentive on ourselves to artificially inflate the API list prices to make it look like you are getting a lot (and workaround it through discounts, etc). Instead we want to continue to both rapidly reduce prices and increase capabilities of models on the API. This week we introduced GPT-6 Sol and GPT-6 Luna at 50% of their previous price. Over time, we see prices go low enough that it makes sense for most to buy usage as needed without there being a significant gap between what you get in a subscription and what you get in the API for a dollar spent. (d) Tomorrow, we are adding more things to the subscription that won't draw on the usage, I won't reveal what that is yet. I wanted to be transparent before all the big announcements tomorrow. Lots of new exciting things are coming to the subscriptions that will make it super compelling, but I wanted to make sure to share this change ahead of time so you can all understand it before we shower you with good news. Codexingly, Tibo

We are aware that codex is down and are working hard to bring back normal service.

I said "auto-regressive LLMs, in and of themselves, will not lead human-level AI" That statement is still totally true. First, the reasoning abilities of current AI systems are based non-auto-regressive search (which is what I have always advocated for). But AFAICT, they do it in token space, which is limited and inefficient. I have claimed that human-like reasoning must be a search in continuous representation space. It looks like the industry is moving towards that. Second, the self-improvement methods, as currently practiced, only work for domains where the quality of outputs can be scored without human intervention, such as mathematics, code, and scenarios that can be simulated accurately. Not anything else. Humans and animals learn new skills way more efficiently than current RL methods. Third, the multimodal capabilities of current AI assistants generally use separately-trained encoders (that are not LLMs). This is also what I've been advocating. Except that I think the best way to do this is with JEPA trained with self-supervised learning. The research community is clearly moving towards that (3000 papers on JEPA in just 4 years). Fourth, if LLMs were a path to human-level AI, we would have domestic robots and Level-4 or Level-5 self-driving cars for consumers by now. And we don't. We certainly don't have cars that can learn to drive in 20 hours or practice like any teenager. We're still missing something pretty huge to claim human-level intelligence (let alone superhuman). Sure, we now have computer systems that are impressive, very useful, and whose performance is superhuman in an increasing number of domains (coding being one of them). But that's true of the entire history of progress in computer technology. Lastly, there is a basic confusion about what intelligence actually is. It is not the mere accumulation and regurgitation of existing declarative knowledge (which is essentially what LLMs do). As Jean Piaget famously said, "intelligence is not what you know, it is what you do when you don't know." It is your ability to solve new problem without any prior training, to act in previously-unknown scenarios, and to adapt very quickly to new situations with minimal training. We're still far from that.

Most predictions I see are still way too conservative. Here's mine

Claude Code is now tasked with promoting claude.ai in a totally unrelated coding session. I am really worried that it may just go ahead to connect to Gmail, Google Calenar, and Google drive in some auto-mode.

At peak, Lovable creates 250 new repos per second on code.storage. Simultaneously they improved fetch latency 230% from a more purely object storage solution. If you’re a product builder and it’s scale and speed that you’re after, signups are now open. code.storage/changelog/lovab…

OpenAI patched the glitch and theo from t3gg and his intern quietly deleted their posts so they don’t get blamed lmao

By next year, using a computer will be optional. Work will radically change.

New research from Meta. Agent harnesses are still mostly authored by hand. This makes it hard to tune robust agent harnesses for long-horizon tasks. In this new work, agents learn harness policies offline and deploy them to construct and update external harness state online during runtime task execution. EvoHarness-RL learns that policy instead. Belief, Progress, and Experience are exposed as harness state the policy can act on. Supervised harness fine-tuning teaches the action space, then cost-aware GRPO explores when to read, update, and consolidate during a long run. Qwen3-8B reaches 96.9% on ALFWorld. Two dynamics come out of the training. > Harness annealing means recurring harness-use patterns get absorbed into the model policy, and the agent shifts from frequent calls toward selective access. > Harness evolution means progress updates and experience consolidation compress the workspace into a compact task-adaptive state. This shows that long-horizon agents get more from a trainable coordination policy than from bigger tools or larger memories. Paper: arxiv.org/abs/2608.05446 Track more trending AI papers in our academy: academy.dair.ai/

my current @activegraphai inspired approach to a modular repo-centric agent operating system