I wonder if the era of dynamic programming languages is over. Python/JS/Ruby/etc. were good tradeoffs when developer time mattered. But now that most code is written by LLMs, it's as "hard" for the LLM to write Python as it is to write Rust/Go (assuming enough training data on the language ofc; LLMs still can't write Gleam/Janet/CommonLisp/etc.).
Esp. with Go's quick compile time, I can see myself using it more and more even in my one-off scripts that would have used Python/Bash otherwise. Plus, I get a binary that I can port to other systems w/o problem.
Compiled is back?
> But now that most code is written by LLMs
Got anything to back up this wild statement?
Me, my team, and colleagues also in software dev are all vibe coding. It's so much faster.
If you have to ask, you can't afford it.
> But now that most code is written by LLMs, it's as "hard" for the LLM to write Python as it is to write Rust/Go
The LLM still benefits from the abstraction provided by Python (fewer tokens and less cognitive load). I could see a pipeline working where one model writes in Python or so, then another model is tasked to compile it into a more performant language
It's very good (in our experience, YMMV of course) when/llm write prototype with python and then port automatically 1-1 to Rust for perf. We write prototypes in JS and Python and then it gets auto ported to Rust and we have been doing this for about 1 year for all our projects where it makes sense; in the past months it has been incredibly good with claude code; it is absolutely automatic; we run it in a loop until all (many handwritten in the original language) tests succeed.
IDK what's going on in your shop but that sounds like a terrible idea!
- Libraries don't necessarily map one-to-one from Python to Rust/etc.
- Paradigms don't map neatly; Python is OO, Rust leans more towards FP.
- Even if the code be re-written in Rust, it's probably not the most Rustic (?) approach or the most performant.
It doesn't map anything 1 to 1, it uses our guidelines and architecture for porting it which works well. I did say YMMV anyway; it works well for us.
Sorry, so basically you're saying there are two separate guidelines, one for Python and one for Rust, and you have the LLM write it first in Python and then Rust. But I still don't understand why it would be any better than writing the code in Rust in one go? Why "priming" it in Python would improve the result in any way?
Also, what happens when bug fixes are needed? Again first in Py and then in Rs?
I think that's not as beneficial as having proper type errors and feeding that into itself as it writes
Expressive linting seems more useful for that than lax typing without null safety.
NP (as in P = NP) is also much lower for Python than Rust on the human side.
What does that mean? Can you elaborate?
Sorry, yes. LLMs write code that's then checked by human reviewers. Maybe it will be checked less in the future. But I'm not seeing fully-autonomous AI on the horizon.
At that point, the legibility and prevalence of humans who can read the code becomes almost more important than which language the machine "prefers."
Well, verification is easier than creation (i.e., P ≠ NP). I think humans who can quickly verify something works will be in more demand than those who know how to write it. Even better: Since LLMs aren't as creative as humans (in-distribution thinking), test-writers will be in more demand (out-of-distribution thinkers). Both of these mean that humans will still be needed, but for other reasons.
The future belongs to generalists!
I agree with this. Making languages geared toward human ergonomics probably won’t be a thing going forward.
Go is positioned really well here, and Steve Yegge wrote a piece on why. The language is fast, less bloated than Python/TS, and less dogmatic than Java/Kotlin. LLMs can go wham with Go and the compiler will catch most of the obvious bugs. Faster compilation means you can iterate through a process pretty quickly.
Also, if I need abstraction that’s hard to achieve in Go, then it better be zero-cost like Rust. I don’t write Python for anything these days. I mean, why bother with uv, pip, ty, mypy, ruff, black, and whatever else when the Go compiler and the standard tooling work better than that decrepit Python tooling? And it costs almost nothing to make my scripts faster too.
I don’t yet know how I feel about Rust since LLMs still aren’t super good with it, but with Go, agentic coding is far more pleasurable and safer than Python/TS.
> But now that most code is written by LLMs
Is this true? It seems to be a massive assumption.
By lines of code produced in total? Probably true. By usefulness? Unclear.
Replace _is_ with _can be_ and I think the general point still stands.
Sounds like just as big an assumption.
By lines of code, almost by an order of magnitude.
Some of the code is janky garbage, but that’s what most code it. There’s no use pearl clutching.
Human engineering time is better spent at figuring out which problems to solve than typing code token by token.
Identifying what to work on, and why, is a great research skill to have and I’m glad we are getting to realistic technology to make that a baseline skill.
Well, you will somehow have to turn that 'janky garbage' into quality code, who will do that then?
You don't really have to.
For most code, this never happens in the real world.
The vast majority of code is garbage, and has been for several decades.
This type of comments get downvoted the most on HN but it is absolute truth, most human-written code is “subpar” (trying to be nice and not say garbage). I have been working as a contractor for many years and code I’ve seen is just… hard to put it into words.
so much discussion here on HN which critiques “vibe codes” etc implies that human would have written it better which is vast vast majority is simple not the case
> who will do that then?
the next version of LLMs. write with GPT 5.2 now, improve the quality using 5.3 in a couple months; best of both worlds.
My intuition from using the tools broadly is that pre-baked design decisions/“architectures” are going to be very competitive on the LLM coding front. If this is accurate, language matters less than abstraction.
Instructions files are just pre-made decisions that steer the agent. We try to reduce the surface area for nondeterminism using these specs, and while the models will get better at synthesizing instructions and code understanding, every decision we remove pays dividends in reduced token usage/time/incorrectness.
I think this is what orgs like Supabase see, and are trying to position themselves as solutions to data storage, auth, events etc within the LLM coding space, and are very successful albeit in the vibe coder area mostly. And look at AWS Bedrock, they’ve abstracted every dimension of the space into some acronym.
I have certainly become Go-curious thanks to coding agents - I have a medium sized side-project in progress using Go at the moment and it's been surprisingly smooth sailing considering I hardly
know the language.
The Go standard library is a particularly good fit for building network services and web proxies, which fits this project perfectly.
It's funny seeing you say that, because I've had an entire arc of despising the design of, and peremptorily refusing to use, Go, to really enjoying it, thanks to AI coding agents being able to take care of the boilerplate for me.
It turns out that verbosity isn't really a problem when LLMs are the one writing the code based on more high level markdown specs (describing logic, architecture, algorithms, concurrency, etc), and Go's extreme simplicity, small range of language constructs, and explicitness (especially in error handling and control flow) make it much easier to quickly and accurately review agent code.
It also means that Go's incredible (IMO) runtime, toolchain, and standard library are no longer marred by the boilerplate either, and I can begin to really appreciate their brilliance. It has me really reconsidering a lot of what I believed about language design.
Yeah, I much prefer Go to Rust for LLM things because I find Go code easy to read and understand despite having little experience with it - Rust syntax still trips me up.
Not to mention that, in general, there's a lot more to keep in mind with Rust.
I've written probably tens of thousands of lines of Rust at this point, and while I used to absolutely adore it, I've really completely fallen out of love with it, and part of it is that it's not just the syntax that's horrible to look at (which I only realized after spending some time with Go and Python), but you have to always keep in mind a lot of things:
- the borrow checker
- lifetimes,
- all the different kinds of types that represent different ways of doing memory management
- parse out sometimes extremely complex and nearly point-free iterator chaining
- deal with a complex type system that can become very unwieldy if you're not careful
- and more I'm probably not thinking of right now
Not to mention the way the standard library exposes you to the full bore of all the platform-specific complexities it's designed on top of, and forces you to deal with them, instead of exposing a best-effort POSIX-like unified interface, so path and file handling can be hellish. (this is basically the reverse of fasterthanlime's point in the famous "I want off mr. golang's wild ride" essay).
It's just a lot more cognitive overhead to just getting something done if all you want is a fast statically compiled, modern programming language. And it makes it even harder to review code. People complain about Go boilerplate, but really, IME, Rust boilerplate is far, far worse.
100% check out Golang even more! I have been writing Golang AI coding projects for a really long time because I really loved writing different languages and Golang was one in which I settled on.
Golang's libraries are phenomenal & the idea of porting over to multiple servers is pretty easy, its really portable.
I actually find Golang good for CLI projects, Web projects and just about everything.
Usually the only time I still use python uvx or vibe code using that is probably when I am either manipulating images or pdf's or building a really minimalist tkinkter UI in python/uv
Although I tried to convert the python to golang code which ended up using fyne for gui projects and surprisingly was super robust but I might still use python in some niche use cases.
Check out my other comment in here for finding a vibe coded project written in a single prompt when gemini 3 pro was launched in the web (I hope its not promotion because its open source/0 telemetry because I didn't ask for any of it to be added haha!)
Golang is love. Golang is life.
> considering I hardly know the language.
Same boat! In fact I used to (still do) dislike Go's syntax and error handling (the same 4 lines repeated every time you call a function), but given that LLMs can write the code and do the cross-model review for me, I literally don't even see the Go source code, which is nice because I'd hate it if I did (my dislike of Go's syntax + all the AI slop in the code would drive me nuts).
But at the end of the day, Go has good scaffolding, the best tooling (maybe on par with Rust's, definitely better than Python even with uv), and tons of training data for LLMs. It's also a rather simple language, unlike Swift (which I wish was simpler because it's a really nice language otherwise).
Has anyone tried creating a language that would be good for LLMs? I feel like what would be good for LLMs might not be the same thing that is good for humans (but I have no evidence or data to support this, just a hunch).
The problem with this is the reason LLMs are so good at writing Python/Java/JavaScript is that they've been trained on a metric ton of code in those languages, have seen the good the bad and the ugly and been tuned to the good. A new language would be training from scratch and if we're introducing new paradigms that are 'good for LLMs but bad for humans' means humans will struggle to write good code in it, making the training process harder. Even worse, say you get a year and 500 features into that repo and the LLM starts going rogue - who's gonna debug that?
But coding is largely trained on synthetic data.
For example, Claude can fluently generate Bevy code as of the training cutoff date, and there's no way there's enough training data on the web to explain this. There's an agent somewhere in a compile test loop generating Bevy examples.
A custom LLM language could have fine grained fuzzing, mocking, concurrent calling, memoization and other features that allow LLMs to generate and debug synthetic code more effectively.
If that works, there's a pathway to a novel language having higher quality training data than even Python.
>Has anyone tried creating a language that would be good for LLMs?
I’ve thought about this and arrived at a rough sketch.
The first principle is that models like ChatGPT do not execute programs; they transform context. Because of that, a language designed specifically for LLMs would likely not be imperative (do X, then Y), state-mutating, or instruction-step driven. Instead, it would be declarative and context-transforming, with its primary operation being the propagation of semantic constraints. The core abstraction in such a language would be the context, not the variable. In conventional programming languages, variables hold values and functions map inputs to outputs. In a ChatGPT-native language, the context itself would be the primary object, continuously reshaped by constraints. The atomic unit would therefore be a semantic constraint, not a value or instruction.
An important consequence of this is that types would be semantic rather than numeric or structural. Instead of types like number, string, bool, you might have types such as explanation, argument, analogy, counterexample, formal_definition.
These types would constrain what kind of text may follow, rather than how data is stored or laid out in memory. In other words, the language would shape meaning and allowable continuations, not execution paths. An example:
@iterate:
refine explanation
until clarity ≥ expert_threshold
There are two separate needs here. One is a language that can be used for computation where the code will be discarded. Only the output of the program matters. And the other is a language that will be eventually read or validated by humans.
Most programming languages are great for LLMs. The problem is with the natural language specification for architectures and tasks. https://brannn.github.io/simplex/
"Hi Ralph, I've already coded a function called GetWeather in JS, it returns weather data in JSON can you build a UI around it. Adjust the UI overtime"
At runtime modify the application with improvements, say all of a sudden we're getting air quality data in the JSON tool, the Ralph loop will notice, and update the application.
The Arxiv paper is cool, but I don't think I can realistically build this solo. It's more of a project for a full team.
yes "now what?" | llm-of-choice
What does that even mean?
> But now that most code is written by LLMs
I'm sure it will eventually be true, but this seems very unlikely right now. I wish it were true, because we're in a time where generic software developers are still paid well, so doing nothing all day, with this salary, would be very welcome!
Code written by LLM != developer doing nothing
[deleted]
LLM should generate to terse and easy to read language for human to review. Beside Python, F# can be a perfect fit.
[dead]
If you asked the LLM it's possible it would tell you Java is a better fit.
> assuming enough training data
This is a big assumption. I write a lot of Ansible, and it can’t even format the code properly, which is a pretty big deal in yaml. It’s totally brain dead.
I'm not sure that LLMs are going to [completely] replace the desire for JIT, even with relatively fast compilers.
Frameworks might go the way of the dinosaur. If an LLM can manage a lot of complex code without human-serving abstractions, why even use something like React?
Frameworks aren't just human-serving abstractions - they're structural abstractions that allow for performant code, or even being able to achieve certain behaviours.
Sure, you could write a frontend without something like react, and create a backend without something like django, but the code generated by an LLM will become similarly convoluted and hard to maintain as if a human had written it.
LLM's are still _quite_ bad at writing maintainable code - even for themselves.
Test cases; test coverage
I was also thinking this some days ago. The scaffolding that static languages provide is a good fit for LLMs in general.
Interestingly, since we are talking about Go specifically, I never found that I was spending too much typing... types. Obviously more than with a Python script, but never at a level where I would consider it a problem. And now with newer Python projects using type annotations, the difference got smaller.
> And now with newer Python projects using type annotations, the difference got smaller.
Just FWIW, you don't actually have to put type annotations in your own code in order to use annotated libraries.
Indeed, but nowadays it’s common to add the annotations to claw back a bit of more powerful code linting.
Agree on compiled languages, wondering about Go vs Rust. Go compiles faster but is more verbose, token cost is an important factor. Rust's famously strict compiler and general safety orientation seems like a strong candidate for LLM coding. Go would probably have more training data out already though.
I wouldn't speak so quickly for the 'uncommon' language set. I had Claude write me a fully functional typed erlang compiler with ocaml and LLVM IR over the last two days to test some ideas. I don't know ocaml. It made the right calls about erlang, and the result passes a fairly serious test suite, so it must've known enough ocaml and LLVM IR.
People are still going to want to audit the code, at the very least.
or maybe someone will use an LLM to create a JIT that works so well that compiled languages will be gone.
I think you're missing the reason LLMs work: It's cause they can continue predictable structures, like a human.
The surmise that compiled languages fit that just doesn't follow. The same way LLMs have trouble finishing HTML because of the open/close are too far apart.
The language that an LLM would succeed with is one where:
1. Context is not far apart
2. The training corpus is wide
3. Keywords, variables, etc are differentiated in the training.
4. REPL like interactivity allows for a feedback loop.
So, I think it's premature to think just because the compiled languages are less used because of human inabilities, doesn't mean the LLM will do any better.
Astronaut 1: You mean... strong static typing is an unmitigated win?
Astronaut 2: Always has been...
I love golang man! And I use it for the same thing too!!
I mean people mention rust and everything and how AI can write proper rust code with linter and some other thing but man trust me that AI can write some pretty good golang code.
I mean though, I don't want everyone to write golang code with AI of all of a sudden because I have been doing it for over an year and its something that I vibe with and its my personal style. I would lose some points of uniqueness if everyone starts doing the same haha!
Man my love for golang runs deep. Its simple, cross platform (usually) and compiles super fast. I "vibe code" but feel faith that I can always manage the code back.
(self promotion? sorry about that: but created golang single main.go file project with a timer/pomodoro with websockets using gorilla (single dep) https://spocklet-pomodo.hf.space/)
So Shhh let's keep it a secret between us shall we! ;)
(Oh yeah! Recently created a WHMCS alternative written in golang to hook up to any podman/gvisor instance to build your own mini vps with my own tmate server, lots of glue code but it actually generated it in first try! It's surprisingly good, I will try to release it as open source & thinking of charging just once if people want everything set up or something custom
Though one minor nitpick is that the complexity almost rises many folds between a single file project and anything which requires database in golang from what I feel usually but golang's pretty simple and I just LOVE golang.)
Also AI's pretty good at niche languages too I tried to vibe code a fzf alternative from golang to v-lang and I found the results to be really promising too!
[dead]
> Plus, I get a binary that I can port to other systems w/o problem.
So cross-platform vibe-coded malware is the future then?
I hope that AVs will also evolve using the new AI tech to detect this type of malware.
Honestly I looked at Go for malware and I mean AV detection for golang used to be ehh but recently It got strong.
Then it became a cat and mouse game with obfuscators and deobfucsators.
John Hammond has a *BRILLIANT* Video on this topic. 100% recommneded.
Honestly Speaking from John Hammond I feel like Nim as a language or V-lang is something which will probably get vibe coded malware from. Nim has been used for hacking so much that iirc windows actually blocked the nim compiler as malware itself!
Nim's biggest issue is that hackers don't know it but if LLM's fix it. Nim becomes a really lucrative language for hackers & John Hammond described that Nim's libraries for hacking are still very decent.
How long before they'll be mining crypto?
why would they do that?
Seems like everyone is trying to get ahead of tool calling moving people "off platform" and creating differentiators around what tools are available "locally" to the models etc. This also takes the wind out of the sandboxing folks, as it probably won't be long before the "local" tool calling can effectively do anything you'd need to do on your local machine.
I wonder when they'll start offering virtual, persistent dev environments...
I started building something for the dioxus team to have access to mac/linux persistent and ephemeral dev envs with vnc and beefy cpu/mem.
Nobody offered multiplatform and we really needed it!
Claude Code for the web is kind of a persistent virtual dev environment already.
You can start a session there and chat with it to get a bunch of work done, then come back to that session a day later and the virtual filesystem is in the same state as when you left it.
I haven't figured out if this has a time limit on it - it's possible they're doing something clever with object storage such that the cost of persisting those environments is really low, see also Fly's Sprites.dev: https://fly.io/blog/design-and-implementation/
It's so incredibly buggy though. I end up with hung sessions "starting claude code" every second or third time. After a few times of losing work I'm done with it. I'll check back in a few months and see if it's in better shape.
> I wonder when they'll start offering virtual, persistent dev environments...
A lot of companies have been wanting to move in this direction. Instead of maintaining a fleet of machines, you just get a bunch of thin clients and pay Microsoft of whoever to host the actual workloads. They already do this 'kiosk' style stuff for a lot of front-line staff.
Honestly, not having my own local hardware for development sounds like a living hell, but seems like the way we are going.
Coding agents are a particularly good fit for disposable development environments because of the risk of them messing things up. If the entire environment is ephemeral the worst that can happen (aside from private source code leaks to a malicious third party) is the environment gets trashed and you have to start over in a new one.
Coming full circle to renting time from a mainframe.
We are gonna have YOLO agents who will deploy directly to website (technically exe.dev already does that for me when I ask it to generate golang projects lol)
Honestly I felt like it really bores me or (overwhelms?) me because now I feel like okay now I will do this, then that and then that & drastically expand the scope of the project but that comes with its own fatigue and the limits of free tokens or context with exe.dev so I end up publishing it on git provider, git ingest it paste it in web browser gemini ask it for updates (it has 1 million context) and then paste it with Opencode with an openrouter devstral key.
I used this workflow to drastically improve the UI of a project but like I would consider that aside from some tinkering, I felt like the "fun" of a project definitely got reduced.
It was always fun for me to use LLM's as I was in loop (Didn't use agents, copy paste workflow from web) but now agents kind of replicated that too & have gotten (I must admit) pretty good at it.
I don't know man, any thoughts on how to make such things fun again? When LLM's first came or even before using agents like this with just creating single scripts, It was fun to use them but creating whole projects with huge scope feels very fun sucking imo.
I wonder how long npm/pip etc even makes sense.
Dependancies introduce unnecessary LOC and features which are, more and more, just written by LLMs themselves. It is easier to just write the necessary functionality directly. Whether that is more maintainable or not is a bit YMMV at this stage, but I would wager it is improving.
As long as "don't roll your own crypto" is considered good advice, you'll have at least a few packages/libraries that'll need managing.
For a decent number of relatively pedestrian tasks though, I can see it.
At times I wonder why x tui coding agent was written in js/ts/python, why not use Go if it's mostly llm coded anyway? But that's mostly my frustration at having to wait for npm to install a thousand dependencies, instead of one executable plus some config files. There's also support libraries like terminal ui that differ in quality between platforms.
This is like saying Wikipedia doesn't make sense because there's now Grokipedia
there are people (on Hacker News Dot Com, even) who believe this without a shred of shame or irony.
best to write assembly instead.
Regular default ChatGPT can also now run code in Node.js, Ruby, Perl, PHP, Go, Java, Swift, Kotlin, C and C++.
I'm not sure when these new features landed because they're not listed anywhere in the official ChatGPT release notes, but I checked it with a free account and it's available there as well.
Shame no c# in that list
Probably (?) not related but there is an issue with claude code for web with nuget. It doesn't support the proxy auth mechanism that anthropic gives it. I wonder if it's the same problem here.
Has Gemini lost its ability to run javascript and python? I swear it could when it was launched by now its saying it hasn't the ability. Annoying regression when Claude and ChatGPT are so good at it.
This regression seems to have happened in the past few days. I suspected it was hallucinating the run and confirmed it by by asking Gemini to output the current date/time. The UTC it was reported was in the future from my clock. Some challenging mathematics were generating wrong results. Gemini will acknowledge something is wrong if you push it to explain the discrepancies, but can't explain it.
Isn’t that ChatGPT’s internal MCP tools?
It's one of the tools that are available to ChatGPT - they're not MCP tools because ChatGPT's implementation of tools pre-dates MCP, but they work effectively the same way.
Maybe soon we have single use applications. Where ChatGPT can write an App for you on-the-fly in a cloud sandbox you interact with it in the browser and fulfill your goal and afterwards the App is shutdown and thrown away.
You can already do this.
exe.dev (though there are alternatives like sprites.dev etc. too)
[flagged]
Did I miss the boat on chatgpt? Is there something more to it than the web chat interface?
I jumped on the Claude Code bandwagon and I dropped off chatgpt.
I find the chatgpt voice interface to be infuriating; it literally talks in circles and just spews summary garbage whenever I ask it anything remotely specific.
I still like ChatGPT for search more than Claude, though I think Claude may be catching up now. Gemini is getting good at search too (as you'd hope it would!)
Not sure if this is still working. I tried getting it to install cowsay and it ran into authentication issues. Does it work for other people?
npm error code E401
npm error Incorrect or missing password.
npm error If you were trying to login, change your password, create an
npm error authentication token or enable two-factor authentication then
npm error that means you likely typed your password in incorrectly.
npm error Please try again, or recover your password at:
npm error https://www.npmjs.com/forgot
npm error
npm error If you were doing some other operation then your saved credentials are
npm error probably out of date. To correct this please try logging in again with:
npm error npm login
npm error A complete log of this run can be found in: /home/oai/.npm/_logs/2026-01-26T21_20_00_322Z-debug-0.log
> Checking and overriding npm registry
> It seems like the registry option is protected, possibly pointing to an internal OpenAI registry that requires authentication. To bypass this, I can override the registry in the command with npm i cowsay --registry=https://registry.npmjs.org/. Let's give this a try and see if it works.
It's unclear if that helped.
I tried again and it worked. It seems like I have to ask for it to do things "in the container" or it will just give me directions about how to do it.
OK that's really weird. Intermittent environment bug perhaps?
How much compute do you get in these containers? Could I have it run whisper on an mp3 it downloads?
That might work! You would have to figure out how to get Whisper working in there but I'm sure that's possible with a bit of creativity concerning uploading files and maybe running a build with the available C compiler.
If people are getting this for free or even as an offering with chatgpt consideirng it becomes subsidized too. Lowend providers are a little in threat with their 7$/year deals if Chatgpt provides 56 cores for free. this doesn't seem right to provide so many cores for (free??)
Are you running this in your free account as you mention in blog post simon or in your paid account?
My $20/month paid account.
I used a free account to check if the feature was available there and it tried to get me to upgrade two prompts in (just enough for me to confirm the container worked and could install packages).
Oh thanks for your reply Simon!
> I used a free account to check if the feature was available there and it tried to get me to upgrade two prompts in (just enough for me to confirm the container worked and could install packages).
Wait it tried... to make you upgrade your chatgpt account from free to paid account? Sorry I didn't get what you meant here
(Funnily I asked chatgpt about what it thinks of your text and it says that It thinks that it tries to ask you to pay up)
Is this thing (maybe some additions to make it like sprites.dev?) + some ad features for basic query gonna be how openAI Monetizes?
I mean I am part of lowend community (so indie community of hosting providers) and they are all really pissed and some shutting down because of ram prices increases. OpenAI has all the ram in the world right now so is it trying to be a monopoly in this instance?
I just found it to be really dystopian that it asked you to pay. Can you share me a pic of it if possible or share the free conversation. Heck, I might have to try it now on my free account as well.
It did what I asked - proving that the container feature works even for free accounts - but then displayed a message saying that I was as out of free prompts and would need to upgrade or wait before I could run more.
by default containers do not limit core count, you'll get all available on the host/VM.
these cores are shared with all the other containers, could be hundreds more
but… will gpt still get confused by the ellippses that its document viewer ui hack adds? probably yes.
Congratulations. One insecure buggy code generator connected to an insecure packaging "system", PyPI.
We are eagerly awaiting Claude Launch, which will be connected to ICBM bases. The last thing humanity will hear is a 100 page boring LLM written mea culpa by Amodei, where he'll say that he has warned about the dangers but it was inevitable.
... as root?
No root. `pip` and `npm install` don't require it.
I wonder if the era of dynamic programming languages is over. Python/JS/Ruby/etc. were good tradeoffs when developer time mattered. But now that most code is written by LLMs, it's as "hard" for the LLM to write Python as it is to write Rust/Go (assuming enough training data on the language ofc; LLMs still can't write Gleam/Janet/CommonLisp/etc.).
Esp. with Go's quick compile time, I can see myself using it more and more even in my one-off scripts that would have used Python/Bash otherwise. Plus, I get a binary that I can port to other systems w/o problem.
Compiled is back?
> But now that most code is written by LLMs
Got anything to back up this wild statement?
Me, my team, and colleagues also in software dev are all vibe coding. It's so much faster.
If you have to ask, you can't afford it.
> But now that most code is written by LLMs, it's as "hard" for the LLM to write Python as it is to write Rust/Go
The LLM still benefits from the abstraction provided by Python (fewer tokens and less cognitive load). I could see a pipeline working where one model writes in Python or so, then another model is tasked to compile it into a more performant language
It's very good (in our experience, YMMV of course) when/llm write prototype with python and then port automatically 1-1 to Rust for perf. We write prototypes in JS and Python and then it gets auto ported to Rust and we have been doing this for about 1 year for all our projects where it makes sense; in the past months it has been incredibly good with claude code; it is absolutely automatic; we run it in a loop until all (many handwritten in the original language) tests succeed.
IDK what's going on in your shop but that sounds like a terrible idea!
- Libraries don't necessarily map one-to-one from Python to Rust/etc.
- Paradigms don't map neatly; Python is OO, Rust leans more towards FP.
- Even if the code be re-written in Rust, it's probably not the most Rustic (?) approach or the most performant.
It doesn't map anything 1 to 1, it uses our guidelines and architecture for porting it which works well. I did say YMMV anyway; it works well for us.
Sorry, so basically you're saying there are two separate guidelines, one for Python and one for Rust, and you have the LLM write it first in Python and then Rust. But I still don't understand why it would be any better than writing the code in Rust in one go? Why "priming" it in Python would improve the result in any way?
Also, what happens when bug fixes are needed? Again first in Py and then in Rs?
I think that's not as beneficial as having proper type errors and feeding that into itself as it writes
Expressive linting seems more useful for that than lax typing without null safety.
NP (as in P = NP) is also much lower for Python than Rust on the human side.
What does that mean? Can you elaborate?
Sorry, yes. LLMs write code that's then checked by human reviewers. Maybe it will be checked less in the future. But I'm not seeing fully-autonomous AI on the horizon.
At that point, the legibility and prevalence of humans who can read the code becomes almost more important than which language the machine "prefers."
Well, verification is easier than creation (i.e., P ≠ NP). I think humans who can quickly verify something works will be in more demand than those who know how to write it. Even better: Since LLMs aren't as creative as humans (in-distribution thinking), test-writers will be in more demand (out-of-distribution thinkers). Both of these mean that humans will still be needed, but for other reasons.
The future belongs to generalists!
I agree with this. Making languages geared toward human ergonomics probably won’t be a thing going forward.
Go is positioned really well here, and Steve Yegge wrote a piece on why. The language is fast, less bloated than Python/TS, and less dogmatic than Java/Kotlin. LLMs can go wham with Go and the compiler will catch most of the obvious bugs. Faster compilation means you can iterate through a process pretty quickly.
Also, if I need abstraction that’s hard to achieve in Go, then it better be zero-cost like Rust. I don’t write Python for anything these days. I mean, why bother with uv, pip, ty, mypy, ruff, black, and whatever else when the Go compiler and the standard tooling work better than that decrepit Python tooling? And it costs almost nothing to make my scripts faster too.
I don’t yet know how I feel about Rust since LLMs still aren’t super good with it, but with Go, agentic coding is far more pleasurable and safer than Python/TS.
> But now that most code is written by LLMs
Is this true? It seems to be a massive assumption.
By lines of code produced in total? Probably true. By usefulness? Unclear.
Replace _is_ with _can be_ and I think the general point still stands.
Sounds like just as big an assumption.
By lines of code, almost by an order of magnitude.
Some of the code is janky garbage, but that’s what most code it. There’s no use pearl clutching.
Human engineering time is better spent at figuring out which problems to solve than typing code token by token.
Identifying what to work on, and why, is a great research skill to have and I’m glad we are getting to realistic technology to make that a baseline skill.
Well, you will somehow have to turn that 'janky garbage' into quality code, who will do that then?
You don't really have to.
For most code, this never happens in the real world.
The vast majority of code is garbage, and has been for several decades.
This type of comments get downvoted the most on HN but it is absolute truth, most human-written code is “subpar” (trying to be nice and not say garbage). I have been working as a contractor for many years and code I’ve seen is just… hard to put it into words.
so much discussion here on HN which critiques “vibe codes” etc implies that human would have written it better which is vast vast majority is simple not the case
> who will do that then?
the next version of LLMs. write with GPT 5.2 now, improve the quality using 5.3 in a couple months; best of both worlds.
My intuition from using the tools broadly is that pre-baked design decisions/“architectures” are going to be very competitive on the LLM coding front. If this is accurate, language matters less than abstraction.
Instructions files are just pre-made decisions that steer the agent. We try to reduce the surface area for nondeterminism using these specs, and while the models will get better at synthesizing instructions and code understanding, every decision we remove pays dividends in reduced token usage/time/incorrectness.
I think this is what orgs like Supabase see, and are trying to position themselves as solutions to data storage, auth, events etc within the LLM coding space, and are very successful albeit in the vibe coder area mostly. And look at AWS Bedrock, they’ve abstracted every dimension of the space into some acronym.
I have certainly become Go-curious thanks to coding agents - I have a medium sized side-project in progress using Go at the moment and it's been surprisingly smooth sailing considering I hardly know the language.
The Go standard library is a particularly good fit for building network services and web proxies, which fits this project perfectly.
It's funny seeing you say that, because I've had an entire arc of despising the design of, and peremptorily refusing to use, Go, to really enjoying it, thanks to AI coding agents being able to take care of the boilerplate for me.
It turns out that verbosity isn't really a problem when LLMs are the one writing the code based on more high level markdown specs (describing logic, architecture, algorithms, concurrency, etc), and Go's extreme simplicity, small range of language constructs, and explicitness (especially in error handling and control flow) make it much easier to quickly and accurately review agent code.
It also means that Go's incredible (IMO) runtime, toolchain, and standard library are no longer marred by the boilerplate either, and I can begin to really appreciate their brilliance. It has me really reconsidering a lot of what I believed about language design.
Yeah, I much prefer Go to Rust for LLM things because I find Go code easy to read and understand despite having little experience with it - Rust syntax still trips me up.
Not to mention that, in general, there's a lot more to keep in mind with Rust.
I've written probably tens of thousands of lines of Rust at this point, and while I used to absolutely adore it, I've really completely fallen out of love with it, and part of it is that it's not just the syntax that's horrible to look at (which I only realized after spending some time with Go and Python), but you have to always keep in mind a lot of things:
- the borrow checker - lifetimes, - all the different kinds of types that represent different ways of doing memory management - parse out sometimes extremely complex and nearly point-free iterator chaining - deal with a complex type system that can become very unwieldy if you're not careful - and more I'm probably not thinking of right now
Not to mention the way the standard library exposes you to the full bore of all the platform-specific complexities it's designed on top of, and forces you to deal with them, instead of exposing a best-effort POSIX-like unified interface, so path and file handling can be hellish. (this is basically the reverse of fasterthanlime's point in the famous "I want off mr. golang's wild ride" essay).
It's just a lot more cognitive overhead to just getting something done if all you want is a fast statically compiled, modern programming language. And it makes it even harder to review code. People complain about Go boilerplate, but really, IME, Rust boilerplate is far, far worse.
100% check out Golang even more! I have been writing Golang AI coding projects for a really long time because I really loved writing different languages and Golang was one in which I settled on.
Golang's libraries are phenomenal & the idea of porting over to multiple servers is pretty easy, its really portable.
I actually find Golang good for CLI projects, Web projects and just about everything.
Usually the only time I still use python uvx or vibe code using that is probably when I am either manipulating images or pdf's or building a really minimalist tkinkter UI in python/uv
Although I tried to convert the python to golang code which ended up using fyne for gui projects and surprisingly was super robust but I might still use python in some niche use cases.
Check out my other comment in here for finding a vibe coded project written in a single prompt when gemini 3 pro was launched in the web (I hope its not promotion because its open source/0 telemetry because I didn't ask for any of it to be added haha!)
Golang is love. Golang is life.
> considering I hardly know the language.
Same boat! In fact I used to (still do) dislike Go's syntax and error handling (the same 4 lines repeated every time you call a function), but given that LLMs can write the code and do the cross-model review for me, I literally don't even see the Go source code, which is nice because I'd hate it if I did (my dislike of Go's syntax + all the AI slop in the code would drive me nuts).
But at the end of the day, Go has good scaffolding, the best tooling (maybe on par with Rust's, definitely better than Python even with uv), and tons of training data for LLMs. It's also a rather simple language, unlike Swift (which I wish was simpler because it's a really nice language otherwise).
Has anyone tried creating a language that would be good for LLMs? I feel like what would be good for LLMs might not be the same thing that is good for humans (but I have no evidence or data to support this, just a hunch).
The problem with this is the reason LLMs are so good at writing Python/Java/JavaScript is that they've been trained on a metric ton of code in those languages, have seen the good the bad and the ugly and been tuned to the good. A new language would be training from scratch and if we're introducing new paradigms that are 'good for LLMs but bad for humans' means humans will struggle to write good code in it, making the training process harder. Even worse, say you get a year and 500 features into that repo and the LLM starts going rogue - who's gonna debug that?
But coding is largely trained on synthetic data.
For example, Claude can fluently generate Bevy code as of the training cutoff date, and there's no way there's enough training data on the web to explain this. There's an agent somewhere in a compile test loop generating Bevy examples.
A custom LLM language could have fine grained fuzzing, mocking, concurrent calling, memoization and other features that allow LLMs to generate and debug synthetic code more effectively.
If that works, there's a pathway to a novel language having higher quality training data than even Python.
>Has anyone tried creating a language that would be good for LLMs?
I’ve thought about this and arrived at a rough sketch.
The first principle is that models like ChatGPT do not execute programs; they transform context. Because of that, a language designed specifically for LLMs would likely not be imperative (do X, then Y), state-mutating, or instruction-step driven. Instead, it would be declarative and context-transforming, with its primary operation being the propagation of semantic constraints. The core abstraction in such a language would be the context, not the variable. In conventional programming languages, variables hold values and functions map inputs to outputs. In a ChatGPT-native language, the context itself would be the primary object, continuously reshaped by constraints. The atomic unit would therefore be a semantic constraint, not a value or instruction.
An important consequence of this is that types would be semantic rather than numeric or structural. Instead of types like number, string, bool, you might have types such as explanation, argument, analogy, counterexample, formal_definition.
These types would constrain what kind of text may follow, rather than how data is stored or laid out in memory. In other words, the language would shape meaning and allowable continuations, not execution paths. An example:
@iterate: refine explanation until clarity ≥ expert_threshold
There are two separate needs here. One is a language that can be used for computation where the code will be discarded. Only the output of the program matters. And the other is a language that will be eventually read or validated by humans.
Most programming languages are great for LLMs. The problem is with the natural language specification for architectures and tasks. https://brannn.github.io/simplex/
There was an interesting effort in that direction the other day: https://simonwillison.net/2026/Jan/19/nanolang/
I don’t know rust but I use it with llms a lot as unlike python, it has fewer ways to do things, along with all the built in checks to build.
I want to create a language that allows an LLM to dynamically decide what to do.
A non dertermistic programing language, which options to drop down into JavaScript or even C if you need to specify certain behaviors.
I'd need to be much better at this though.
You're describing a multi-agent long horizon workflow that can be accomplished with any programming language we have today.
I'm always open to learning, are there any example projects doing this ?
The most accessible way to start experimenting would be the Ralph loop: https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/tree/main/plugins/...
You could also work backwards from this paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.18470
Ok.
I'm imagining something like.
"Hi Ralph, I've already coded a function called GetWeather in JS, it returns weather data in JSON can you build a UI around it. Adjust the UI overtime"
At runtime modify the application with improvements, say all of a sudden we're getting air quality data in the JSON tool, the Ralph loop will notice, and update the application.
The Arxiv paper is cool, but I don't think I can realistically build this solo. It's more of a project for a full team.
yes "now what?" | llm-of-choice
What does that even mean?
> But now that most code is written by LLMs
I'm sure it will eventually be true, but this seems very unlikely right now. I wish it were true, because we're in a time where generic software developers are still paid well, so doing nothing all day, with this salary, would be very welcome!
Code written by LLM != developer doing nothing
LLM should generate to terse and easy to read language for human to review. Beside Python, F# can be a perfect fit.
[dead]
If you asked the LLM it's possible it would tell you Java is a better fit.
> assuming enough training data
This is a big assumption. I write a lot of Ansible, and it can’t even format the code properly, which is a pretty big deal in yaml. It’s totally brain dead.
I'm not sure that LLMs are going to [completely] replace the desire for JIT, even with relatively fast compilers.
Frameworks might go the way of the dinosaur. If an LLM can manage a lot of complex code without human-serving abstractions, why even use something like React?
Frameworks aren't just human-serving abstractions - they're structural abstractions that allow for performant code, or even being able to achieve certain behaviours.
Sure, you could write a frontend without something like react, and create a backend without something like django, but the code generated by an LLM will become similarly convoluted and hard to maintain as if a human had written it.
LLM's are still _quite_ bad at writing maintainable code - even for themselves.
Test cases; test coverage
I was also thinking this some days ago. The scaffolding that static languages provide is a good fit for LLMs in general.
Interestingly, since we are talking about Go specifically, I never found that I was spending too much typing... types. Obviously more than with a Python script, but never at a level where I would consider it a problem. And now with newer Python projects using type annotations, the difference got smaller.
> And now with newer Python projects using type annotations, the difference got smaller.
Just FWIW, you don't actually have to put type annotations in your own code in order to use annotated libraries.
Indeed, but nowadays it’s common to add the annotations to claw back a bit of more powerful code linting.
Agree on compiled languages, wondering about Go vs Rust. Go compiles faster but is more verbose, token cost is an important factor. Rust's famously strict compiler and general safety orientation seems like a strong candidate for LLM coding. Go would probably have more training data out already though.
I wouldn't speak so quickly for the 'uncommon' language set. I had Claude write me a fully functional typed erlang compiler with ocaml and LLVM IR over the last two days to test some ideas. I don't know ocaml. It made the right calls about erlang, and the result passes a fairly serious test suite, so it must've known enough ocaml and LLVM IR.
People are still going to want to audit the code, at the very least.
or maybe someone will use an LLM to create a JIT that works so well that compiled languages will be gone.
I think you're missing the reason LLMs work: It's cause they can continue predictable structures, like a human.
The surmise that compiled languages fit that just doesn't follow. The same way LLMs have trouble finishing HTML because of the open/close are too far apart.
The language that an LLM would succeed with is one where:
1. Context is not far apart
2. The training corpus is wide
3. Keywords, variables, etc are differentiated in the training.
4. REPL like interactivity allows for a feedback loop.
So, I think it's premature to think just because the compiled languages are less used because of human inabilities, doesn't mean the LLM will do any better.
Astronaut 1: You mean... strong static typing is an unmitigated win?
Astronaut 2: Always has been...
I love golang man! And I use it for the same thing too!!
I mean people mention rust and everything and how AI can write proper rust code with linter and some other thing but man trust me that AI can write some pretty good golang code.
I mean though, I don't want everyone to write golang code with AI of all of a sudden because I have been doing it for over an year and its something that I vibe with and its my personal style. I would lose some points of uniqueness if everyone starts doing the same haha!
Man my love for golang runs deep. Its simple, cross platform (usually) and compiles super fast. I "vibe code" but feel faith that I can always manage the code back.
(self promotion? sorry about that: but created golang single main.go file project with a timer/pomodoro with websockets using gorilla (single dep) https://spocklet-pomodo.hf.space/)
So Shhh let's keep it a secret between us shall we! ;)
(Oh yeah! Recently created a WHMCS alternative written in golang to hook up to any podman/gvisor instance to build your own mini vps with my own tmate server, lots of glue code but it actually generated it in first try! It's surprisingly good, I will try to release it as open source & thinking of charging just once if people want everything set up or something custom
Though one minor nitpick is that the complexity almost rises many folds between a single file project and anything which requires database in golang from what I feel usually but golang's pretty simple and I just LOVE golang.)
Also AI's pretty good at niche languages too I tried to vibe code a fzf alternative from golang to v-lang and I found the results to be really promising too!
[dead]
> Plus, I get a binary that I can port to other systems w/o problem.
So cross-platform vibe-coded malware is the future then?
I hope that AVs will also evolve using the new AI tech to detect this type of malware.
Honestly I looked at Go for malware and I mean AV detection for golang used to be ehh but recently It got strong.
Then it became a cat and mouse game with obfuscators and deobfucsators.
John Hammond has a *BRILLIANT* Video on this topic. 100% recommneded.
Honestly Speaking from John Hammond I feel like Nim as a language or V-lang is something which will probably get vibe coded malware from. Nim has been used for hacking so much that iirc windows actually blocked the nim compiler as malware itself!
Nim's biggest issue is that hackers don't know it but if LLM's fix it. Nim becomes a really lucrative language for hackers & John Hammond described that Nim's libraries for hacking are still very decent.
How long before they'll be mining crypto?
why would they do that?
Seems like everyone is trying to get ahead of tool calling moving people "off platform" and creating differentiators around what tools are available "locally" to the models etc. This also takes the wind out of the sandboxing folks, as it probably won't be long before the "local" tool calling can effectively do anything you'd need to do on your local machine.
I wonder when they'll start offering virtual, persistent dev environments...
I started building something for the dioxus team to have access to mac/linux persistent and ephemeral dev envs with vnc and beefy cpu/mem.
Nobody offered multiplatform and we really needed it!
https://skyvm.dev
Claude Code for the web is kind of a persistent virtual dev environment already.
You can start a session there and chat with it to get a bunch of work done, then come back to that session a day later and the virtual filesystem is in the same state as when you left it.
I haven't figured out if this has a time limit on it - it's possible they're doing something clever with object storage such that the cost of persisting those environments is really low, see also Fly's Sprites.dev: https://fly.io/blog/design-and-implementation/
It's so incredibly buggy though. I end up with hung sessions "starting claude code" every second or third time. After a few times of losing work I'm done with it. I'll check back in a few months and see if it's in better shape.
> I wonder when they'll start offering virtual, persistent dev environments...
A lot of companies have been wanting to move in this direction. Instead of maintaining a fleet of machines, you just get a bunch of thin clients and pay Microsoft of whoever to host the actual workloads. They already do this 'kiosk' style stuff for a lot of front-line staff.
Honestly, not having my own local hardware for development sounds like a living hell, but seems like the way we are going.
Coding agents are a particularly good fit for disposable development environments because of the risk of them messing things up. If the entire environment is ephemeral the worst that can happen (aside from private source code leaks to a malicious third party) is the environment gets trashed and you have to start over in a new one.
Coming full circle to renting time from a mainframe.
We are gonna have YOLO agents who will deploy directly to website (technically exe.dev already does that for me when I ask it to generate golang projects lol)
Honestly I felt like it really bores me or (overwhelms?) me because now I feel like okay now I will do this, then that and then that & drastically expand the scope of the project but that comes with its own fatigue and the limits of free tokens or context with exe.dev so I end up publishing it on git provider, git ingest it paste it in web browser gemini ask it for updates (it has 1 million context) and then paste it with Opencode with an openrouter devstral key.
I used this workflow to drastically improve the UI of a project but like I would consider that aside from some tinkering, I felt like the "fun" of a project definitely got reduced.
It was always fun for me to use LLM's as I was in loop (Didn't use agents, copy paste workflow from web) but now agents kind of replicated that too & have gotten (I must admit) pretty good at it.
I don't know man, any thoughts on how to make such things fun again? When LLM's first came or even before using agents like this with just creating single scripts, It was fun to use them but creating whole projects with huge scope feels very fun sucking imo.
I wonder how long npm/pip etc even makes sense.
Dependancies introduce unnecessary LOC and features which are, more and more, just written by LLMs themselves. It is easier to just write the necessary functionality directly. Whether that is more maintainable or not is a bit YMMV at this stage, but I would wager it is improving.
As long as "don't roll your own crypto" is considered good advice, you'll have at least a few packages/libraries that'll need managing.
For a decent number of relatively pedestrian tasks though, I can see it.
At times I wonder why x tui coding agent was written in js/ts/python, why not use Go if it's mostly llm coded anyway? But that's mostly my frustration at having to wait for npm to install a thousand dependencies, instead of one executable plus some config files. There's also support libraries like terminal ui that differ in quality between platforms.
This is like saying Wikipedia doesn't make sense because there's now Grokipedia
there are people (on Hacker News Dot Com, even) who believe this without a shred of shame or irony.
best to write assembly instead.
Regular default ChatGPT can also now run code in Node.js, Ruby, Perl, PHP, Go, Java, Swift, Kotlin, C and C++.
I'm not sure when these new features landed because they're not listed anywhere in the official ChatGPT release notes, but I checked it with a free account and it's available there as well.
Shame no c# in that list
Probably (?) not related but there is an issue with claude code for web with nuget. It doesn't support the proxy auth mechanism that anthropic gives it. I wonder if it's the same problem here.
Has Gemini lost its ability to run javascript and python? I swear it could when it was launched by now its saying it hasn't the ability. Annoying regression when Claude and ChatGPT are so good at it.
This regression seems to have happened in the past few days. I suspected it was hallucinating the run and confirmed it by by asking Gemini to output the current date/time. The UTC it was reported was in the future from my clock. Some challenging mathematics were generating wrong results. Gemini will acknowledge something is wrong if you push it to explain the discrepancies, but can't explain it.
Isn’t that ChatGPT’s internal MCP tools?
It's one of the tools that are available to ChatGPT - they're not MCP tools because ChatGPT's implementation of tools pre-dates MCP, but they work effectively the same way.
Here's a full list which looks accurate to me: https://chatgpt.com/share/6977ffa0-df14-8006-9647-2b8c90ccbb...
Maybe soon we have single use applications. Where ChatGPT can write an App for you on-the-fly in a cloud sandbox you interact with it in the browser and fulfill your goal and afterwards the App is shutdown and thrown away.
You can already do this.
exe.dev (though there are alternatives like sprites.dev etc. too)
[flagged]
Did I miss the boat on chatgpt? Is there something more to it than the web chat interface?
I jumped on the Claude Code bandwagon and I dropped off chatgpt.
I find the chatgpt voice interface to be infuriating; it literally talks in circles and just spews summary garbage whenever I ask it anything remotely specific.
I still like ChatGPT for search more than Claude, though I think Claude may be catching up now. Gemini is getting good at search too (as you'd hope it would!)
Not sure if this is still working. I tried getting it to install cowsay and it ran into authentication issues. Does it work for other people?
Can you share the transcript?
https://chatgpt.com/share/6977f9d7-ca94-8000-b1a0-8b1a994e58...
The transcript doesn't show it (I think it faked it) but here's the code in the sidebar:
> bash -lc mkdir -p /mnt/data/cowsay-demo && cd /mnt/data/cowsay-demo && npm init -y >/dev/null && npm i cowsay@latest >/dev/null && echo 'Installed cowsay version:' && node -e "console.log(require('cowsay/package.json').version)"
> Checking and overriding npm registry > It seems like the registry option is protected, possibly pointing to an internal OpenAI registry that requires authentication. To bypass this, I can override the registry in the command with npm i cowsay --registry=https://registry.npmjs.org/. Let's give this a try and see if it works.It's unclear if that helped.
I tried again and it worked. It seems like I have to ask for it to do things "in the container" or it will just give me directions about how to do it.
OK that's really weird. Intermittent environment bug perhaps?
How much compute do you get in these containers? Could I have it run whisper on an mp3 it downloads?
That might work! You would have to figure out how to get Whisper working in there but I'm sure that's possible with a bit of creativity concerning uploading files and maybe running a build with the available C compiler.
It appears to have 4GB of RAM and 56 (!?) CPU cores https://chatgpt.com/share/6977e1f8-0f94-8006-9973-e9fab6d244...
Cores are shared with other containers.
Huh...
If people are getting this for free or even as an offering with chatgpt consideirng it becomes subsidized too. Lowend providers are a little in threat with their 7$/year deals if Chatgpt provides 56 cores for free. this doesn't seem right to provide so many cores for (free??)
Are you running this in your free account as you mention in blog post simon or in your paid account?
My $20/month paid account.
I used a free account to check if the feature was available there and it tried to get me to upgrade two prompts in (just enough for me to confirm the container worked and could install packages).
Oh thanks for your reply Simon!
> I used a free account to check if the feature was available there and it tried to get me to upgrade two prompts in (just enough for me to confirm the container worked and could install packages).
Wait it tried... to make you upgrade your chatgpt account from free to paid account? Sorry I didn't get what you meant here
(Funnily I asked chatgpt about what it thinks of your text and it says that It thinks that it tries to ask you to pay up)
Is this thing (maybe some additions to make it like sprites.dev?) + some ad features for basic query gonna be how openAI Monetizes?
I mean I am part of lowend community (so indie community of hosting providers) and they are all really pissed and some shutting down because of ram prices increases. OpenAI has all the ram in the world right now so is it trying to be a monopoly in this instance?
I just found it to be really dystopian that it asked you to pay. Can you share me a pic of it if possible or share the free conversation. Heck, I might have to try it now on my free account as well.
Curiosity's piqued right now.
On my free ChatGPT account I ran a prompt telling it to write and execute hello world in a bunch of languages: https://chatgpt.com/share/6977aa7c-7bd8-8006-8129-8c9e25126f...
It did what I asked - proving that the container feature works even for free accounts - but then displayed a message saying that I was as out of free prompts and would need to upgrade or wait before I could run more.
by default containers do not limit core count, you'll get all available on the host/VM.
these cores are shared with all the other containers, could be hundreds more
but… will gpt still get confused by the ellippses that its document viewer ui hack adds? probably yes.
Congratulations. One insecure buggy code generator connected to an insecure packaging "system", PyPI.
We are eagerly awaiting Claude Launch, which will be connected to ICBM bases. The last thing humanity will hear is a 100 page boring LLM written mea culpa by Amodei, where he'll say that he has warned about the dangers but it was inevitable.
... as root?
No root. `pip` and `npm install` don't require it.
You can not use `sudo apt install` inside it.
They use gVisor, and other container isolation mechanisms: https://ryan.govost.es/2025/openai-code-interpreter/
Given that it's within a container on a remote server, does that matter?
I mean i hope its more hardened than JUST a container given how many container escapes there are.
Apparently, they are using gVisor, which when applied properly, should make a pretty good isolation primitive.