Wow, I did not expect this much response from my comment. First, let me say I am not flexing. I am very willing and happy to share HOW I'm able to achieve high quality code through my workflows and what my loops look like.
I am currently building 4 projects at the same time using a boilerplate I developed for my own projects.
One thing many people who are new to agentic coding harnesses may be missing is that a lot of workflows are personal to how the developer approaches design and implementation. So if you message me, please keep in mind that my approach may not align with how you approach software development.
That said, I will do my best to abstract my process so it's applicable for your work. I would also recommend reading OpenAI's article on harness engineering: https://openai.com/index/harness-engineering/
DMs are open if you genuinely want to know how I work :)
I think this guy is using AI differently than me. Since Opus 4.6 and GPT 5.3, I have been able to absolutely crush my coding work. Boris might be embellishing how he ONLY writes loops, but for the most part I am just handing off planning docs to Claude or GPT and they implement it with like 95% accuracy.
A lot of you don't want to hear it but this is a user issue.
You can use STT and include a workflow that automatically extracts the requirements (filters all the um's, ah's, pauses) and it becomes more like an interaction where you act as the Product Owner/Manager and Codex is your Architect/Dev.
At least, that's how I code through my phone. But it does require some forethought in establishing your automated workflows. I'm at the point where my entire dev system has established templates for CI/CD so I can preview work in staging and production is still a manual step (obviously).
Human systems have a critical bottleneck, it's run by humans. That doesn't mean it's necessarily a flaw, but it means all systems are corruptible if it's run by corrupted humans.
And I mean this for any sort of system from corporate, nonprofits, dictatorships, oligarchs, and democracy. Democracy is still a human-run system and that people seem to think democracy is somehow this bastion of freedom is a delusion.
If we want better systems we need better people running them, but that's a conversation that's emerging so we'll see how it goes.
People wonder why the state of the world is the way it is. Traumatized child expresses themselves the only way they know how? Let's beat them, surely this is the solution not creating a safe environment.
Does this imply there's room for ethically-sourced AI? I've always thought that at some point there would be some sort of p2p-style way of people contributing their compute resources to training AI models that are distributed for everyone to use.
Right, I'm including my own observations in what the leaderboard is showing. Could be confirmation bias, but I use both Opus and GPT extensively and since GPT 5.4 I have noticed that Opus doesn't even begin to touch GPT's level of technical depth. I was hoping Opus 4.7 would close that gap, but unfortunately it doesn't even compare to GPT 5.4 in that sense.
I'm not being a hater, I love Opus for different reasons, but I can't rely on it for its technical ability.
Wow. This benchmark definitely feels more accurate than the other rankings I've seen. My experience with gpt 5.4/5.5 is that they are technically flawless and if there are any technical issues that is because the input didn't provide enough clarity; that's not to say that it doesn't autonomously react to any issues during bug fixes or implementations, but it'll tend to nail its tasks without leaving behind gaps.
Opus otoh is overrated in terms of its technical ability. It is certainly a better designer/developer for beautiful user experiences, but I'll always lean on gpt 5.5 to check its work.
The biggest surprise in the benchmark is Xiao-Mi. I haven't tried it yet, but I will be after looking at this.
Grats on your team for putting together something meaningful to make sense of the ongoing AI speedrun! Great work!
Depends on what you qualify as proof. Much of what I said was experiential and corroborated with other people who have had similar experiences as I've had. I know that in the scientific world it would be dismissed without as much a glance. But I'm not here to convince everyone of my perspective, I'm just adding one that the engineering world has not examined or introduced given the current pursuit.
And it's not a matter of not liking the alternative. Like I said, I used to believe that consciousness was an emergent trait of complex systems, but I had what some call a "spiritual awakening" and I saw what was on the other side.
It's kind of like describing pizza to someone who's never eaten pizza. You could try and describe it by asking if they'd eaten cheese or bread or tomato sauce before and then go "imagine all of those combined". It's not the same as actually having eaten it. But this is heading into a different, albeit related territory.
This is a tricky topic to navigate because from a materialist perspective consciousness is the side effect of biochemical mechanisms. And many will point to the brain as the obvious container of our consciousness as a bullet to the head versus the arm would demonstrate.
But if a brain/intelligence is all you need to prove consciousness, then would an effectively complex set of neural networks that contained the same amount of neurons as a human be considered "conscious"? My guess is even at that level, probably not. Algorithms alone may mimic consciousness, but it won't be true consciousness.
Imagien this: what if consciousness is closer to something like the movie Avatar? What if the body our consciousness inhabits is closer to that of inhabiting a machine or computer that coexisted with the physics of the universe our body exists?
This would mean Jake from Avatar could theoretically inhabit not just a Na'Vi body, but what if they reproduced the Pandora equivalent of a squirrel for Jake to insert his consciousness into? Jake the Squirrel would be only as capable of expressing itself as the constraints of the body would allow it to.
Many religions discovered a long time ago that this is the most likely model of what we understand to be consciousness/sentience.
I'm not saying you're wrong, this is a conversation larger than what we may believe and touches into the core of what makes us humans that machine alone cannot replicate.
You bring up an interesting point, but I would pose the following: where does will come from?
To me, consciousness is the seat, or root, of where will comes from. Let's say you get expert level surgeon or politician training, what then?
There is nothing that specifically silos a surgeon or politician's knowledge-set. Meaning a politician's skillset isn't purely in a domain that doesn't cross into a surgeon's and vice-versa. There are nuances to being a politician and a surgeon that extend beyond diplomacy or "being able to cut real good".
What you're left with is just high-skilled workflows. But what utilizes these workflows? To me, the answer is that consciousness needs to be powering these workflows.
I posted my own comment but I agree with you. Our modern society likes to claim we are somehow "more intelligent" than our predecessors/ancestors. I couldn't disagree more. We have not changed in terms of intelligence for thousands of years. This is a matter that's beyond just engineering, it's also a matter of philosophy and perspective.
As an engineer who is also spiritual at the core, it seems obvious to me the missing piece: consciousness.
Hear me out.
I love AI and have been using it since ChatGPT 3.5. The obvious question when I first used it was "does this qualify as sentience?" The answer is less obvious. Over the next 3 years we saw EXPONENTIAL intelligence gains where intelligence has now become a commodity, yet we are still unable to determine what qualifies as "AGI".
My thoughts:
As humans, we possess our own internal drive and our own perspective. Think of humans as distilled intelligence, we each have our own specialty and motivations. Einstein was a genius physicist but you wouldn't ask him for his expertise on medicine.
What people are describing as AGI is essentially a godlike human. What would make more sense is if the AGI spawned a "distilled" version with a focused agenda/motivation to behave autonomously. But even then, there are limitations. What is the solution? A trillion tokens of system prompt to act as the "soul"/consciousness of this AI agent?
This goes back to my original statement, what is missing is a level of consciousness. Unless this AGI can power itself and somehow the universe recognizes its complexity and existence and bestows it with consciousness I don't think this is phsyically attainable.
Don't apologize for your truth. A lot of people on reddit/HN fancy themselves as free-thinkers and the moment something contradicts their reality they reveal themselves to be as emotionally vulnerable as the rest of humanity.
I am currently building 4 projects at the same time using a boilerplate I developed for my own projects.
One thing many people who are new to agentic coding harnesses may be missing is that a lot of workflows are personal to how the developer approaches design and implementation. So if you message me, please keep in mind that my approach may not align with how you approach software development.
That said, I will do my best to abstract my process so it's applicable for your work. I would also recommend reading OpenAI's article on harness engineering: https://openai.com/index/harness-engineering/
DMs are open if you genuinely want to know how I work :)
DISCORD: jayeeeffeff