Be careful getting too deep in OpenAI tooling because they end up deprecating almost everything in under two years, sometimes without even a formal notice.
Everything they make these days looks to be strongly vibecoded without a decent review or functional testing. This leads to basic avoidable bugs that annoy vast numbers of users.
Not only this, but when you point out an issue to them on GitHub, they have a history of blocking the reporting user instead of tackling the technical issue.
At this point, it’s safe to assume all net-new software is vibecoded. Who in their right mind would take a month to create an MVP when a bot can spit it out in an afternoon? Existing software isn’t necessarily immune, but there are still individuals that are fighting (or resisting the change) to keep their code base human readable. It’s a losing battle. Eventually those people are either gonna change their minds, leave or be pushed out. Then the agents will be unleashed upon those code bases too.
Saying "surely, everybody does X" is a sure way to be wrong. You're even spectacularly failing at making your own point by acknowledging in the very same comment that there are, in fact, people not doing it. Some people are different from you, deal with it.
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.
While I agree with the premise, I would argue with the conclusion. Yes agents can and do code fast. But if you're integrating software in business where people work in some patterns, more often than not there are "real life" happening. You learn that only by operating a system long enough to know these things. And competence accumulates, and the value of provider increases with the learned patterns. I think many devs live in tech world which is sometimes detached from physical world, world where people actually has to do some work, which takes time and system working in technical sense, doesnt work in practical sense.
> Who in their right mind would take a month to create an MVP when a bot can spit it out in an afternoon
The people who need something more than an MVP, I would suppose. Bot sure does spit out a prototype faster than any human can, but actually building on that dogshit prototype becomes slower than someone with a clue writing by hand.
I don't really know what to say tbh. I feel insane at times too but I'm being a realist and a pragmatist. I think I'm in the "changed their mind" camp because I got tired of fighting and can't deny reality. It is a losing battle. All approaches to manage changes in a traditional way also don't work. I have seen people who left because they can and I might follow suit too.
Like I think (or know) code reviews are also over. Someone asks me for a 10-11am brainstorming meeting regarding a concept they are working on, at 11:15 they have a "design doc" ready, at 1pm they ping me if I had a chance to review it yet, at 3pm I approve it, at 3:30pm they send a 7k line PR... "dude, that's not ok. I'm not reviewing 7k line change" so they say "oh yes absolutely sorry about that. that makes a lot of sense. Do you want 7 1k-line PRs? or 14 500-line PRs?" "hey Claude, split this into 10 commits and open 10 stacked PRs" :|
Sort of, that's the mindset you get because you've no clue how the app actually works.
We have a 100% vibe-coding team, and yes, when they couldn't pass through the CI/CD at some point, they contacted the Ops team and literally said "the agent said the problem is on your side".
This reminded me my dad's story. "In highschool we used to tell our teachers we couldn't do our homework because lights were out." Take anyway you want.
Makes sense. Very hard for humans to keep up with LLM-generated code. But LLMs/Agents have no problem with this. So they are using the dev style that would drive their business towards generating more money. A funny concept for a non-profit organization.
I don't see how buggy software directly leads to generating more money? A company being successful doesn't somehow magically make them infallible, 100% rational or immune to making mistakes (as you are implying).
I don't know why people keep harping on buggy software.. it really is the average not the exception. I mean we see this with all the defects in existing software that agents find.
I love how people all pretend that they and most engineers are god like programmers. Sure, some people are really good. My 30 years of experience say that is like 5%, maybe if you are at google or a really good start up, that can creep up to 30-50%.
By far the majority of engineers are not elegant or even really craftsman like. Add to this that unless you are working on a pet project you are usually neck deep in something that has had teams working in it for years.
It creates situations where most engineers don't really know what the code base does below the surface area where they are making feature changes. So work gets cobbled on or patched in where people are comfortable making changes.
All I can say is I would much rather have 3 open Opus 5.5 instances than a team of 3 working for me if we are only talking about delivering high quality code. I don't think that is the only value of engineers, but I think we are at a point where the models have way exceeded average engineer ability. There are still tendencies for "compatability everything" and "don't rock the boat" in the current frontier LLMs that can create architectural issues, but if you know what to look for when working, it isn't generally an issue.
I mean just remember how mush everyone complained about buggy games or MacOs or whatever before LLMs even came around.
I imagine the play is RL your model to solve problems using your own tools which it knows how to use most efficiently until it defaults to using services like managed agents, etc.
Be careful getting too deep in OpenAI tooling because they end up deprecating almost everything in under two years, sometimes without even a formal notice.
Everything they make these days looks to be strongly vibecoded without a decent review or functional testing. This leads to basic avoidable bugs that annoy vast numbers of users.
Not only this, but when you point out an issue to them on GitHub, they have a history of blocking the reporting user instead of tackling the technical issue.
At this point, it’s safe to assume all net-new software is vibecoded. Who in their right mind would take a month to create an MVP when a bot can spit it out in an afternoon? Existing software isn’t necessarily immune, but there are still individuals that are fighting (or resisting the change) to keep their code base human readable. It’s a losing battle. Eventually those people are either gonna change their minds, leave or be pushed out. Then the agents will be unleashed upon those code bases too.
Saying "surely, everybody does X" is a sure way to be wrong. You're even spectacularly failing at making your own point by acknowledging in the very same comment that there are, in fact, people not doing it. Some people are different from you, deal with it.
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.
While I agree with the premise, I would argue with the conclusion. Yes agents can and do code fast. But if you're integrating software in business where people work in some patterns, more often than not there are "real life" happening. You learn that only by operating a system long enough to know these things. And competence accumulates, and the value of provider increases with the learned patterns. I think many devs live in tech world which is sometimes detached from physical world, world where people actually has to do some work, which takes time and system working in technical sense, doesnt work in practical sense.
> Who in their right mind would take a month to create an MVP when a bot can spit it out in an afternoon
The people who need something more than an MVP, I would suppose. Bot sure does spit out a prototype faster than any human can, but actually building on that dogshit prototype becomes slower than someone with a clue writing by hand.
This type of comments is making me insane.
I don't really know what to say tbh. I feel insane at times too but I'm being a realist and a pragmatist. I think I'm in the "changed their mind" camp because I got tired of fighting and can't deny reality. It is a losing battle. All approaches to manage changes in a traditional way also don't work. I have seen people who left because they can and I might follow suit too.
Like I think (or know) code reviews are also over. Someone asks me for a 10-11am brainstorming meeting regarding a concept they are working on, at 11:15 they have a "design doc" ready, at 1pm they ping me if I had a chance to review it yet, at 3pm I approve it, at 3:30pm they send a 7k line PR... "dude, that's not ok. I'm not reviewing 7k line change" so they say "oh yes absolutely sorry about that. that makes a lot of sense. Do you want 7 1k-line PRs? or 14 500-line PRs?" "hey Claude, split this into 10 commits and open 10 stacked PRs" :|
This type of comments gives me the impression that HN is riddled with AI marketing bots.
Most people are practical
Reality is making you question your sanity.
The comments are just accurately describing that new, insane reality.
I'm so curious what you do when the providers go down. Do you tell your boss you can't fix the incident because your token quota is out?
Sort of, that's the mindset you get because you've no clue how the app actually works.
We have a 100% vibe-coding team, and yes, when they couldn't pass through the CI/CD at some point, they contacted the Ops team and literally said "the agent said the problem is on your side".
How many times have you heard "we can't work because GitHub is down?". This has nothing to do with AI, and yes, it's commonplace.
…yes? This is the equivalent of an electrician showing up to your house without tools.
It would be faster to setup a deepseek locally hosted instance or glm than try and build by hand, assuming all hosted providers were down somehow.
Which is to say, there is no token quota. If you run out you buy more.
This reminded me my dad's story. "In highschool we used to tell our teachers we couldn't do our homework because lights were out." Take anyway you want.
It’s all greenfield and I’m not surprised to see deprecation. Eventually tooling will distill into what works.
Makes sense. Very hard for humans to keep up with LLM-generated code. But LLMs/Agents have no problem with this. So they are using the dev style that would drive their business towards generating more money. A funny concept for a non-profit organization.
I don't see how buggy software directly leads to generating more money? A company being successful doesn't somehow magically make them infallible, 100% rational or immune to making mistakes (as you are implying).
I don't know why people keep harping on buggy software.. it really is the average not the exception. I mean we see this with all the defects in existing software that agents find.
I love how people all pretend that they and most engineers are god like programmers. Sure, some people are really good. My 30 years of experience say that is like 5%, maybe if you are at google or a really good start up, that can creep up to 30-50%.
By far the majority of engineers are not elegant or even really craftsman like. Add to this that unless you are working on a pet project you are usually neck deep in something that has had teams working in it for years.
It creates situations where most engineers don't really know what the code base does below the surface area where they are making feature changes. So work gets cobbled on or patched in where people are comfortable making changes.
All I can say is I would much rather have 3 open Opus 5.5 instances than a team of 3 working for me if we are only talking about delivering high quality code. I don't think that is the only value of engineers, but I think we are at a point where the models have way exceeded average engineer ability. There are still tendencies for "compatability everything" and "don't rock the boat" in the current frontier LLMs that can create architectural issues, but if you know what to look for when working, it isn't generally an issue.
I mean just remember how mush everyone complained about buggy games or MacOs or whatever before LLMs even came around.
Does this consume the monthly flat rate subscription quota or API credits.
Does Anthropic have something similar.
I understand "claude -p" has been unreliable to use with subscription quota and often required "extra usage" credits.
When should I use this over Codex? Is this supposed to be called by other tools/agents?
that was my assumption, maybe you use Claude but want it to use OpenAI image generation or something. this got a physical shrug out of me.
Codex = agent harness
OpenAI CLI = wrapper around API
> wrapper around API
aka curl? :-/
Curl with token usage so it’s better.
I imagine the play is RL your model to solve problems using your own tools which it knows how to use most efficiently until it defaults to using services like managed agents, etc.
Honestly surprised this wasn't available sooner.
[flagged]