5 ms·
when o3 pricing dropped 80%, most wrote the entire model family off as a downgrade (including me). but usage patterns flipped people finally ran real tasks thro
by b0a04gl 1y ago
when o3 pricing dropped 80%, most wrote the entire model family off as a downgrade (including me). but usage patterns flipped people finally ran real tasks through it. it's one of the few that holds state across fragmented prompts without collapsing context. used it to audit a messy auth flow spread over 6 services. didn't shortcut, didn't hallucinate edge cases. slow, but deliberate. in kahneman terms, it runs system 2 by default. many still benchmark on token speed, missing what actually matters
- lysecret 1y agoThis feels very Ai generated.
- mettamage 1y agoSome people write in similar ways yea. I've also been accused of writing as an AI. But we're still human mate. Stop discriminating or actually solve the problem. I've had enough of this attitude.
- cshimmin 1y agoalmost as though the AIs were trained on a corpus of text written by... humans
- b0a04gl 1y agoyes im agi by the way
- kridsdale1 1y agohi agi we’ve been trying so hard to find you
- motoxpro 1y agoI would say the opposite. Unless the person has a lot of custom instructions going on. Getting sentences like "but usage patterns flipped people finally ran real tasks through it." seem like it would take some amount of work.
- SkyPuncher 1y agoFeels like a lot of software engineers I work with (including myself at times). Short, concise statements that don't necessarily string together sequentially. However, they still aggregate to a holistic, meaningful thought. No that much different that how a lot of code is written.
- gala8y 1y agoActually, it does not.
- WXLCKNO 1y agoReally doesn't to be fair and I feel like I spot so many AI comments every day.
- lubujackson 1y agoI have been using o3 almost exclusively in Cursor now for my "vibe coding" project. I was able to get to a point with faster models before hitting a thrashing problem of forgetting about structure/not updating types/no using right types/ignoring existing functions, etc. Even when providing specific context. o3 rarely hits those issues and can happily implement a fully feature without breaking anything that touches multiple files. Speed is definitely an issue, but much less hassle on the back side.
- viraptor 1y agoDid you do anything interesting to start using it? I checked o3 when the price dropped and it kept falling basic tasks. ¾ of command runs and edits failed. Claude and Gemini both worked just fine with the same prompts.
- lubujackson 1y agoYes, my codebase has gotten bigger and I hit a rut where every change was blowing up one way or another. The fix was to create a few Cursor rules files. You can have Cursor make this - one to define the overall structure of the project, one to define where dataclass types are (I have a Python codebase), a few different ones for generic patterns for what needs updating when adding new code paths. In Cursor you can also select when Cursor consults these files, every time or when doing specified changes. This has made the biggest difference with o3. If I want to "add a new module" I first explain the goal and have it create a plan (no code). Then I have it save that plan to a TODO.txt. And I just have it start implementing it. I spot check the code along the way to make sure its going down the correct path. I run a few "continue implementing" until it has created tests that pass. Then I test things myself. If all that checks out, I actually look at the code. Most of the time now everything is functioning and I have just a few minor tweaks. Because I'm working on a new project I let some things stay a little wrong because I know I can focus on an across-the-board solution to it later, with a single prompt. The most important thing is to have everything well-typed and well-structured. LLMs thrive in structure.
- 1y ago