← Back to context

Comment by toonvanvr

7 hours ago

No, the tooling I make has better UX very quickly. It is built for their financial goals, not for the end user.

5 comments

toonvanvr

Reply
carterschonwald  7 hours ago

this 1000x. a lot of details in context compaction, editing, reverting ux, etc are all really centered on keeping the load and cost of subscription users as small as possible. its no always that nor is it necessarily correct, but its a huge driver of how those subscriptions and first party apps are designed

ctxc  7 hours ago

I know this is an unpopular opinion, but it's actually good. - pasting lots of content became [35 lines] and they added a tiny notification to show it as-is if you paste again - interactive questions layout - paste images - the recap - auto-updating session titles

And so many more. I tried codex and it was lacking in many UX aspects. Remember we got from a text-paragraph-only terminal to this at breakneck speed.

  • wtallis  31 minutes ago

    Half of what you're listing as features people should be impressed are stuff that causes as much frustration as it solves. The image pasting behavior is a super-annoying footgun, because sometimes I just want to tell the LLM the path to the image file without it trying to burn a ton of tokens on computer vision—and dragging and dropping a file into the terminal pastes the path in any normal context. The auto-updating session titles, recap, and notifications are token-burning distractions that are glitchy; I had to disable them when I found that having the agent launch an app would mean I'd get a random beep about a minute later when the agent had been waiting for further input in the background.

    And they can't seem to go two whole months without scrolling breaking in some new way.