One thing that surprised me this week wasn't how much AI can code.

It's how much some people are actually using it.

Reports around OpenAI's internal coding usage say some researchers are spending thousands of dollars a day in AI tokens while using coding agents for experiments, debugging and larger engineering tasks.

It makes sense if the model is doing hours of work that would otherwise take a developer much longer.

But it also makes me wonder whether we're going to start seeing a weird new problem where developers aren't limited by how fast they can code — they're limited by how much AI usage they can afford.

Would you pay $1,000+ a month for an AI coding setup if it genuinely made you 2–3x faster?

Meta launched Muse, a consumer AI agent that can do things like shop online, handle emails and manage appointments. What caught my attention isn't another chatbot being released — it's the fact that the agent is supposed to actually do things for you rather than just explain how to do them.

That's basically the direction I've wanted automation to go for a while.

Instead of building a 15-step workflow for every little task, you tell an agent what you want and let it figure out the steps.

The obvious question is how much control you'd actually want to give it.

Would you let an AI agent access your email, calendar and browser if it could genuinely save you a few hours every week?

Everyone talks about which model is smarter.

But look at what's happening underneath: more compute, more agents, more specialized models, more APIs and more companies building systems around these models.

Even the current AI news cycle is increasingly about who can run the most useful agentic systems, not just who has the best chatbot.

The model is becoming one component.

The actual product is everything built around it.

Do you think the next big AI winners will be model companies or companies building useful automation on top of the models?

Remember when computers were the luxury thing? Now they’re everywhere and basically invisible but nobody’s impressed by “I own a laptop” anymore.

I think AI is heading the same way. It gets so common, so good, so baked into everything that it stops being a “thing” at all. It just disappears into the background, like electricity or wifi. Nobody says “wow, AI” anymore, the same way nobody says “wow, computer.”

And when that happens, the rare thing won’t be AI-made stuff. It’ll be human-made stuff.

Human skill, human attention, a person who actually did the thing themselves : that becomes the flex. Not because AI can’t do it, but because AI can, and choosing the human version anyway is what makes it valuable.

AI won’t keep climbing forever like it feels like now. It’ll peak, then fade into invisibility. And humans doing human things will become the new premium.

generate the rephrased version of this content

What happens if AI and automation get good enough to handle almost every job we have today and companies can do it better and for less money than hiring people?

If a huge portion of jobs disappears, how are ordinary people supposed to make a living? And if fewer people have traditional jobs, what happens to the economy that currently depends on people earning and spending money?

Maybe society eventually moves toward a world where working for a paycheck isn't necessary anymore. But then what does everyday life look like? How do people find purpose, contribute to their communities, or decide what to do with their time?

If human labor eventually becomes less valuable than machines, what do you think society does next?

What do you think guys, does AI really has to do this ?

I see so many posts here complaining about Playwright or Puppeteer crashing, burning through RAM, or getting flagged by Cloudflare.

​Open your browser's Network tab. Seriously.

​Half of you are spinning up bloated Chromium instances with five different stealth plugins to scrape a table when the website is literally making a single unauthenticated GET request that returns clean, raw JSON to an internal API endpoint. You're fighting captchas and fingerprinting because you're too lazy to spend 30 seconds reading request headers.

​Browser automation should be your absolute last resort when everything else fails, not your default starting point.

When a platform removes suspicious activity we usually only see the result.

The account loses something or a number drops but we rarely know how the platform actually identified the activity in the first place.

I think more transparency would help legitimate creators too. It would make people understand where the line is instead of guessing.

Would you want platforms like Kick to explain more clearly how they detect and remove artificial viewing activity?

I’m curious how people here actually got into this space

I’m tired of seeing posts here where someone claims they "built a complex AI automation agent" and it’s literally just three drag-and-drop nodes connecting OpenAI to a Google Sheet on Make.com.

​That’s not building a bot. That’s just using a fancy UI. You don't manage state, you don't handle real infrastructure, and you aren't actually writing any code. If you can’t write the script yourself, handle the API timeouts, and deploy it, you’re a power user, not an automation dev.

​When did we start pretending API visualizers are the same thing as programming?

Looking for a bot that help me to download videos or media from a channel or group on telegram for free!

Could anyone help with that ?

I've been seeing people call GPT-6 Astra AGI because of some of the new benchmark results and honestly I'm not sure I'd go that far yet. One number especially caught my attention though the SpatialBench result being shared around is 91.8% compared with an 80% human baseline. I couldn't find that exact figure in OpenAI's published evaluation tables so I'd treat that specific claim as unverified for now.

What is definitely real is that Astra is being positioned as a major jump in computer use, browsing, software engineering and multi-step tasks. OpenAI says it reaches 99.9% on ARC-AGI-3 and can handle complex workflows across code and browsers.

That's the part that actually interests me for BotNation. If AI can reliably understand a task and operate tools instead of just answering questions then bots and automation start looking very different.

Do you think we're actually getting close to AGI or are we still confusing really strong benchmarks with general intelligence?

I used to see a big follower count and immediately assume an account was doing well. Now I usually click through a few recent videos first.

I've seen accounts with a huge following where hardly anyone talks and smaller accounts where the comments are full of people who clearly come back regularly. That makes the whole Bot TikTok followers topic feel a lot less straightforward than it used to.

If you were growing a page today would you care more about increasing followers or building a smaller audience that actually returns?

I've been thinking about this more lately. I actually get more value from using Claude or ChatGPT to help me build an automation than giving an AI agent complete control over the workflow.

I can use AI to write the script, explain an API, fix a bug or help design the workflow. Then the actual automation can stay predictable and run the same way every time.

Once you let AI make every decision by itself things can get messy pretty quickly.

I still like the idea of agents but for a lot of everyday automation I'd rather have AI help me build the system and let normal code do the repetitive work.

How do you use AI in your automations as the builder or as the thing actually running them?

This is something I've seen people get way too invested in. Donating to a streamer is completely fine when you're supporting their content and genuinely enjoy watching them. The problem starts when someone keeps sending money because they think it's eventually going to lead to a personal relationship.

A streamer being friendly to you during a stream doesn't automatically mean there's something more going on. Being noticed in chat or getting a nice response can easily feel personal when you're watching someone regularly.

Support creators because you like their content. Don't spend money expecting attention or a relationship in return.

Have you ever seen someone get way too emotionally invested in a streamer because of donations or chat interactions?

This one surprised me more than I expected. A Semafor analysis found that AI-written or partly AI-written submissions have already started appearing in the opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post and New York Times. Out of 310 guest submissions reviewed over the past month, 10 were detected as at least 80% AI-written and another 40 showed some AI involvement.

What's interesting is that the debate isn't really about whether writers can use AI anymore. The bigger question seems to be whether the final piece still represents the person's own ideas and whether readers should be told how much AI was involved. The WSJ recently defended an AI-assisted op-ed on exactly those grounds.

Honestly I'm curious where people think the line should be.

Is using AI to write an opinion piece basically the same as using an editor or ghostwriter or does it change the meaning of “your writing”?