Yeah, but there is a distinct advantage to using a standard.
Suppose you want your agent to use postgres or git or even file modification. You write your code to use MCP and your backend is already available. It's code you don't have to write.
That flaw isn't introduced by the MCP server necessarily it can already be present in the API data it returns, you will never be able to protect yourself against someone injecting a malicious prompt that calls your code eval tool to open up a reverse shell on your MacBook Pro.
That is being done as a stop gap until official servers are released. Ideally you are writing a server for your own product/service, or custom local work.
i.e. I wrote a server for water.gov to pull the river height prediction nearby for the next 24hr. This helps the campground welcome message writing tool craft a better welcome message.
Sure that could be a plain tool call, but why not make it portable into any AI service.
They have an ultrawide mode available now. Personally I find it very uncomfortable. You have to move your whole head to see the sides, and the vision pro is heavy. Looking off to the side for a length of time is uncomfortable.
To add to this: I have a Vision Pro and a 34" curved ultrawide. The latter is much more usable in this regard, because the effective resolution per degree is higher, which means you can keep your head static and use your eyes to look around.
By contrast, you have to use a giant screen on the Vision Pro to get equivalent resolution, which means you have to move your head. It still has its advantages (you can take it wherever you go, and the resolution of the virtual screen can be higher), but it's not yet comparable to a physical monitor, to my chagrin.
The foveated rendering didn’t look phenomenal for me the last time I tried. It gives the perception of a wide FOV but your peripheral vision is still blurry.
The optics on the Vision Pro are... well, they're not fantastic. It's a challenge to blow up displays that small to meet your field of view. Peripheral vision on the Quest 3 is far better, but the displays are over double the size, which made the lens design problem less challenging.
Apple have since purchased at least one lens design company [0], so future iterations of the Vision Pro should hopefully be less optically-challenged.
The Vision Pro is a joke. Way too low resolution (PPD), heavy, expensive, and over-engineered and power hungry. It's baffling how it was ever greenlit.
It's the best possible headset that could have been built with the technology at the time, but the technology at the time was insufficient for the experience that it's designed for. It still has its uses (it's incredible for watching movies and doing work in environments where you don't have a suitably sized monitor), but I agree that it's not a product anyone other than extreme enthusiasts should buy.
I certainly hope it'll get smaller, cheaper and more efficient. I would love more resolution, of course, but I'd be more than happy to keep the existing resolution if the actual ergonomics were improved.
is the point of this to actually assign tasks to an AI to complete end to end? Every task I do with AI requires atleast some bit of hand holding, sometimes reprompting etc. So I don't see why I would want to run tasks in parallel, I don't think it would increase throughput. Curious if others have better experiences with this
I am working with a 3rd party API (Exa.ai) and I hacked together a python script.
I ran a remote agent to do these tasks simultaneously (augment.new, I’m not affiliated, I have early access)
Agent 1: write tests, make sure all the tests pass.
Agent 2: concert python script to fastapi
Agent 3: create frontend based on fastapi endpoints
I get a PR, I check code and see if it works and then merge to main. All three PR’s worked flawlessly (front end wasn’t pretty).
>Our head of product is a reformed lawyer who taught himself to code while working here. He’s shipped 150 PRs in the last 12 months.
>The product manager he sits next to has shipped 130 PRs in the last 12 months.
In a serious organization, non technical people should not be shipping any sort of code. They should be doing the highest leverage things possible to help the business, and if that seems to be coding, there are grave issues in the company.
I see a fraudulent benefit in this case. When these non-tech people go into public talks or anything, they can suddenly claim “oh, I use AI to write 80% of my code” and voila! No one will ask whether their responsibility is to write code or do any engineering, simply being able to give some surface level claims makes them credible enough and feed the hype while appearing cool.
It also gives investors more confidence to shower them with money when needed, as non-tech people are also doing AI coding and they are super agile!
When Msft CEO claims that 80% code written by AI, there is a 50% doubt, but when someone adds that, yeah so I have done 150 PRs, now it feels more concrete and real.
>> In a serious organization, non technical people should not be shipping any sort of code
Just as you want developers building domain knowledge for all the benefits it brings, you want a role like product owner to be developing their understanding of delivering software.
Sometimes the highest leverage thing to be done is making teams of people work better together. One aspect of achieving that can be better understanding of what each role does.
> We will also begin deprecating GPT‑4.5 Preview in the API, as GPT‑4.1 offers improved or similar performance on many key capabilities at much lower cost and latency.
why would they deprecate when it's the better model? too expensive?
> why would they deprecate when it's the better model? too expensive?
Too expensive, but not for them - for their customers. The only reason they’d deprecated it is if it wasn’t seeing usage worth keeping it up and that probably stems from it being insanely more expensive and slower than everything else.
Where did you find that 4.5 is a better model? Everything from the video told me that 4.5 was largely a mistake and 4.1 beats 4.5 at everything. There's no point keeping 4.5 at this point.
Bigger numbers are supposed to mean better. 3.5, 4, 4.5. Going from 4 to 4.5 to 4.1 seems weird to most people. If it's better, it should of been GPT-4.6 or 5.0 or something else, not a downgraded number.
reply