I've tried Chinese open models few times before. They were fine, but they didn't come close to the benchmarks they were claiming.
Now, maybe GLM 5.2 is close to Opus 4.7, but I don't wanna keep checking them and keep finding that they're still benchmaxing and aren't at GPT (my choice) or Opus level. The boy who cried wolf, I guess.
Hah. And you think a Govt agency will be able to do a rigorous enough examination to eliminate people who don't know that just because a method in C# is asynchronous does not mean it executes out of order?
Reminds me of a friend whose job application got rejected by some Govt agency in Canada due to "experience mismatch." Job required "Software Programmer" experience but he was a "Software Engineer" instead.
Obsidian is great. And glad to see how you’re looking at plugin security. But one more thing you should consider is: How do you reduce the need for plugins for basic product behavior. E.g., I use a plugin to be able to open a file in new tab instead of replacing current tab. That should be a setting, not a plugin I’m forced to use.
Easy to say that, isn’t it? I can almost guarantee that YOU also want and do consume much more than an average human on this planet. Never mind the fact that humans consume more than their share of the planets resources anyway. Whatever the definition of “their share” is.
Will 1.5B people have a lot of very intelligent people too? Yes, some of the most intelligent! Will those intelligent people have the educational opportunities and research opportunities to be able to use that intelligence to deliver a SOTA model any time soon? Especially with so many resource limitations they face, I doubt it.
Oh. So when you say “May we please have terraform back?” You mean “May we please have terraform back at my employer?” Why are you posting such an employer specific request on a public forum?
My (admittedly one person's anecdotal) experience has been that when I ask Codex and Claude to make a plan/fix and then ask them both to review it, they both agree that Codex's version is better quality. This is on a 140K LOC codebase with an unreasonable amount of time spent on rules (lint, format, commit, etc), on specifying coding patterns, on documenting per workspace README.md, etc.
Piggybacking on this post. Codex is not only finding much higher quality issues, it’s also writing code that usually doesn’t leave quality issues behind. Claude is much faster but it definitely leaves serious quality issues behind.
So much so that now I rely completely on Codex for code reviews and actual coding. I will pick higher quality over speed every day. Please don’t change it, OpenAI team!
Hah. It can’t be “I need to spend more time to figure out how to use these tools better.” It is always “I’m just smarter than other people and have a higher standard.”
I currently use GPT‑5.1-Codex High and have a workflow that works well with the 5-hour/weekly limits, credits, et al. If I use GPT‑5.1-Codex-Max Medium or GPT‑5.1-Codex-Max High, how will that compare cost / credits / limits wise to GPT‑5.1-Codex High? I don't think that's clear. "Reduced tokens" makes me think it'll be priced similarly / lower. But, "Max" makes me think it'll be priced higher.
In my AGENTS.md (which CLAUDE.md et al soft link to), I instruct them to "On phase completion, explicitly write that you followed these guidelines." This text always shows up on Codex and very rarely on Claude Code (TBF, Claude Code is showing it more often lately).
Equal to or more than other major countries? If so, can you show me anything supporting your claim?