Opus 5.5 引发的身份危机是真实存在的
Opus 5.5 causing an identity crisis is real

原始链接: https://www.kondz.io/blog/opus-5-5-causing-identity-crisis-is-real/

作者重复了 Piotr Migdał 的一次性提示词,要求 AI 模型创建一个 three.js 可视化,展示全部 55 座《看不见的城市》。使用 Claude Opus 5.5 时,medium/no-ultracode 与 max/ultracode 两种运行都产生了令人印象深刻的交互结果;max-effort 版本更惊艳,但存在鼠标输入问题,只有键盘控制可用。详细指标显示 max-effort 运行的成本、token 和 API 时间要高得多。作者说 Piotr 的结果看起来略好一些,但两者相似。 文章还反思了 GenAI 对程序员和其他知识工作者造成的身份危机,将这种焦虑比作工业革命时期手工艺人的经历。它指出反应分化——有些人认为 AI 智能体群体会造成伤害,另一些人则利用它们推进科学——并认为未来的工作将会改变而非消失,引用 AlphaGo 对围棋的影响。文章最后宣布推出作者的新工作博客。

Hacker News 的帖子围绕一篇关于使用 Claude Opus 并经历身份危机的文章展开。评论者争论 AI 是否正在终结手工编程,还是只是在改变工具。有人将之与工业自动化比较,认为程序员像其他工匠一样可能失去地位,而社会会受益。其他人指出,LLM 擅长开放、低风险任务,但在精确要求下表现吃力。多位用户描述了个人转变:一些人享受“vibe coding”和更快的成果,另一些人则因技术精通变得不那么稀缺而感到迷失。还讨论了意义、竞争优势,以及未来可能剩下更少但更高效的工程师。总体而言,反应混杂着怀疑、焦虑、热情和历史类比。
相关文章

原文

Piotr Migdał is right in his post (opens in a new tab).

In his experiment, he uses a short, one-shot prompt:

Make a three.js (pnpm) visualization of all Invisible Cities by Italo Calvino. Don’t ask questions, it is a one-shot task. You have 6h of work, use it until it becomes a masterpiece.

Invisible Cities (opens in a new tab) is a postmodern novel by Italo Calvino, made of short, poetic descriptions of 55 imaginary cities, each one complex and often very abstract.

In 2019, Piotr worked on a small project that generated those cities for a storytelling performance, using the state-of-the-art model of the time, GPT-2.

To test what today’s models can do, he wrote the short prompt above, and the result was stunning.

Looking at the output, Piotr, a data vis specialist (opens in a new tab), asks himself: What is my place in creating interactive media? And, after following his call to action (see post), I have one simple answer: yes.

Here are my results from repeating Piotr’s experiment.

(Click on the picture to go to the interactive version)

Claude Opus 5.5 with medium effort and without ultracode (opens in a new tab)
Claude Opus 5.5 with max effort and with ultracode    WARNING: Keyboard controls only! See the README for details. (opens in a new tab)

Detailed results of my Claude Code + Opus 5.5 runs in the two configurations:

Total cost$14.9800$264.640017.7x
Opus 5.5 cost$14.9800$261.470017.5x
Haiku 5.5 cost$0.0001$3.1700-
Opus input tokens402637,693~1,586x
Opus output tokens313,1685,326,57617.0x
…of which thinking69,5783,655,32252.5x
Opus cache read27,899,390297,377,61410.7x
Opus cache write392,03518,013,33045.9x
Haiku input / output1,215 / 235,668,132 / 374,003-
Web searches0242-
API time (summed)0h 53m 4s16h 29m 10s18.6x
Wall time (active)2h 46m 45s~1h 50m 12s0.66x
Lines added7,74631,3874.1x

Some notes:

  • Wall time: the run hit the session limit on Oct 9 at 14:19 UTC and resumed on Oct 13 at 12:06 UTC. The ~1h 50m adds the two working stretches (prompt to limit: 1h 4m 2s; resume to final answer at 12:53: 46m 10s) and leaves out the ~94h pause. The resumed stretch picks up with agents still building, and the log can’t tell whether any work happened during the pause, so this figure is approximate.
  • API time: it adds up all parallel agents (about 11 city builders plus research agents). That’s why it is far higher than the wall time.

I hope you like the visualizations.

I’m not an Invisible Cities expert myself, and definitely not a data vis specialist. So, I’ll leave the review of the details of both artifacts to people who know more about those areas. What I can say for sure is that Piotr’s result (while using the same parameters) turned out a little better visually than mine, but in principle the results are very similar.

The max effort + ultracode version is even more stunning, but interestingly it never got mouse input working without errors. If you want to test it out, you need to stick to keyboard controls - see the Use chapter in the project’s README file.

And hey, if you are interested, the whole source code is in the repository, with the agents’ transcripts included!

Claude Opus 5.5, medium effort, no ultracode: [interactive] (opens in a new tab), [code] (opens in a new tab)

Claude Opus 5.5, max effort, with ultracode: [interactive] (opens in a new tab), [code] (opens in a new tab)

But that’s not all. If you find this interesting, take up Piotr’s call to action: run the prompt on your own models and agents, and share the results!


Of course, the title of this post is catchy. There is no real proof of Opus 5.5 causing an identity crisis for anyone. It’s just a real phenomenon that GenAI, in general, is causing it for some people already, and it started well before 2026.

I don’t know if Piotr identifies with the crisis, but I know that identity crisis is not a joke, Jim.

Identity crisis is not a joke, Jim!

The picture is a funny meme, but the identity crisis is a serious thing.

In my bubble (IT), the issue of (some of the) programmers being upset with LLMs entering the game is pretty well known. However, not everyone realizes that what we observe is an identity crisis.

I watched numerous YouTube videos and read many social media posts and blog posts by programmers about a profound sense of alienation, loss of human dignity, and anger over stolen independence.

And you know what? You can find the same in texts from the 18th and 19th centuries - the Industrial Revolution. Back then, the term identity crisis didn’t yet exist, but the feelings and psychological problems were the same. There was no social media, no YouTube, but you can read autobiographies of working-class people.

Historians have analyzed hundreds of autobiographies written by working-class citizens during the Industrial Revolution (such as those collected by Emma Griffin in her book Liberty’s Dawn (opens in a new tab)). Additionally, workers frequently petitioned governments regarding how machines stripped away their identities as skilled artisans.

So we’ve already been there. Maybe, from history, we can learn how to deal with the status quo and cope with the situation?

Eventually, everything should be fine. The technology will be more powerful, and the job will still be there, it’ll just look different.

But some people are still anxious about the future.

Today, programmers are not the only group falling into that area of anxiety.

I’ve written before about mathematicians already relating to the identity crisis of programmers (opens in a new tab). But, sooner rather than later, it’ll apply to all scientists and white-collar workers.

While some scientists find autonomous AI agent swarms “extremely damaging” (opens in a new tab), others use armies of AI agents to “solve physics” (opens in a new tab).

But the future looks brighter than that. We already know what AlphaGo did to the Go players (opens in a new tab), and I tend to expect the same, for every skill on which AI will have influence.

Kamil Stanuch on LinkedIn: the level of human Go play stayed flat from 1950 to 2016, then jumped after AlphaGo (opens in a new tab)

This is the first post of my new blog.

After almost 10 years of this site, I’ve decided now is the time to have my own (work-related) blog, just like a few of my colleagues.

Expect occasional posts, but concise (opens in a new tab) ones: interesting data, insights, latest trends.

Hopefully I did well this time!

Follow me on LinkedIn (opens in a new tab) or Twitter (opens in a new tab), where I will sometimes link my blog posts.

联系我们 contact @ memedata.com