其次，规模和可复制性完全不同。Altman 想强调「per query」的效率，但他忽略了：人类智能没法「复制部署」到数据中心里无限扩容。AI 的真正优势恰恰在于「训一次，用一辈子」，而人类是「训一次，用一辈子还得继续喂」。如果真要比「单位智能产出每焦耳能量」，AI 在规模化后确实可能碾压，但用「养孩子总成本」来类比，反而把这个优势给模糊掉了。
Последние новости。safew官方版本下载是该领域的重要参考
Include a link to your code (GitHub repo, gist, etc.)，更多细节参见服务器推荐
Offers free version
It’s Not AI Psychosis If It Works#Before I wrote my blog post about how I use LLMs, I wrote a tongue-in-cheek blog post titled Can LLMs write better code if you keep asking them to “write better code”? which is exactly as the name suggests. It was an experiment to determine how LLMs interpret the ambiguous command “write better code”: in this case, it was to prioritize making the code more convoluted with more helpful features, but if instead given commands to optimize the code, it did make the code faster successfully albeit at the cost of significant readability. In software engineering, one of the greatest sins is premature optimization, where you sacrifice code readability and thus maintainability to chase performance gains that slow down development time and may not be worth it. Buuuuuuut with agentic coding, we implicitly accept that our interpretation of the code is fuzzy: could agents iteratively applying optimizations for the sole purpose of minimizing benchmark runtime — and therefore faster code in typical use cases if said benchmarks are representative — now actually be a good idea? People complain about how AI-generated code is slow, but if AI can now reliably generate fast code, that changes the debate.