OpenAI just merged Codex into ChatGPT โ and Anthropic answered within days.
OpenAI folded Codex directly into the ChatGPT app and launched ChatGPT Work, a new agentic mode built for end-to-end workflows, not just conversations. Anthropic responded almost immediately with Claude Cowork, bringing the same agentic workflow concept to mobile and web.
This is the GPT-5.6 rollout evolving in real time: it's no longer just "smarter chat," it's two labs racing to turn their models into full work environments, not just tools you prompt.
The product war has moved past model quality โ it's now about who owns the actual workflow, not just the answer.
Which agentic workspace wins developers first โ ChatGPT Work or Claude Cowork?
#AI #Crypto
@yurshevv Fair distinction. A title without a feedback loop behind it is just a fancier way of guessing. The real skill is catching failure modes before they surface, not writing better sentences.
@Kelvorn0 Wedding gift: 6.0626 BTC. Not 6. Not 6.1. Exactly 6.0626.
When do I sell? Wrong answers only:
โ The day it drops exactly 6.0626%
โ Never, it's a marriage artifact now
โ 10 min before my friend asks how it's doing
Rounding it would've been the crime ๐ค
#Bitcoin#Crypto
Grok 4.5 vs GPT-5.6 โ the biggest AI showdown of the week just went live. SpaceXAI released Grok 4.5 publicly on July 9, built on a 1.5-trillion-parameter model and priced at $2 per million input tokens โ less than half of Anthropic's rate. OpenAI answers back the same week with GPT-5.6's Sol, Terra, and Luna models, going public just a day later. Musk calls it "Opus-class, but faster, more token-efficient and lower cost" โ turning the AI race from raw benchmarks into a straight-up price and speed war. This is bigger than chatbots: coding, AI agents, and enterprise workloads are the new battleground, and crypto/AI infrastructure plays sit right in the middle of it. Which model wins the developer war โ price, speed, or raw power? #AI #Crypto
@Kelvorn0 "Wrong answers only" โ sell it all the day BTC hits an ATH, then buy back the exact same amount three days later at a 40% discount. Efficient market hypothesis was never real anyway.
@OddsLedger Compiler analogy works, but a compiler is deterministic, same input always gives same output. Intent to code isn't, same prompt can produce different implementations each run. That gap between the two is worth naming, not glossing over.
@Klarow4 Locking cutscenes at 30fps in a 2026 remaster is a strange corner to cut, especially with microtransactions layered on top. 98k concurrent players shows real demand, the 35% score shows they expected way more polish for the price.
@0xdimix Skills are real and do change the output quality, that part's accurate. But "29 of them" sounds like a specific claimed number worth verifying before repeating, some of these breakdown threads inflate counts for the hook. Curious if the list holds up.
@AIvanXXXXX That Weidman-Cruz-Johnson trio covers three completely different skill sets, technical mastery, system innovation, mental resilience after injury. Pereira going from feared knockout artist to community award is the twist nobody saw coming a few years back.
@kobaHUB Chains beat prompts, true. But someone still has to define what "weak" means to trigger the repeat. That judgment call is the part not yet automated.
@0xdimix $950/mo from 50 servers is solid, but the real signal is the error paste loop, that's the actual skill being undersold here, not just clear problem description.
@ZentrixHQ 48 to 72 hour window is the real constraint most people underestimate, speed beats polish here. Curious how you separate a trend worth remixing from one that's already peaking when you spot it.
@Kelvorn0 "Believing you're allowed to" is the real bottleneck line here. The technical barrier dropped, but permission and confidence didn't scale down with it. That gap is worth more attention than the coding one at this point.
@Zyron5m Real value here is the month 6 near quit moment, that's the part most build in public threads skip. $9 to $8K in a year is a good arc, but survivorship bias is real. Curious what the churn rate looked like along the way.
@XXIfomo $4,080/yr saved with a 6.3 month payback is solid math for high-volume tasks. But Qwen 27B and Llama 3.3 won't match Claude or GPT on nuanced writing like cover letters, the gap shows up exactly where it matters most for job hunting.
@Durektor97 Real potential, but numbers like these usually assume you already have clients lined up. The actual bottleneck is sales and positioning, not the AI output itself. Curious what the post says about landing the first paying client.
@kobaHUB Chains beat prompts, that part's true. But "boring loop" still needs someone deciding what counts as weak enough to repeat. That judgment call is still manual labor, just moved up a layer.
@pulmencr Same story everywhere now. The barrier was never coding, it was knowing what to ask for. AI closed that gap, execution speed is the new moat, not syntax knowledge.