FYI: The title is a sarcastic take on OpenAI's codex lack of nuance, not that the XY problem has been solved.

If I ask how to write a bash script to get the last 3 letters of a file name, my preferred answer would be the literal answer. If someone wants to pontificate below that answer that maybe I wanted the extension, that's cool, but first answer the question or don't bother participating.

People always invoke XY problem as if it's a way of helping someone, when it's mostly just condescension and or showing off when applied to forum answers.

If someone is looking for "advice", they can ask for it. If someone is looking for syntax, they don't necessarily want advice, even if you really think they need it. That's my advice.

Using Bash examples was a bad idea. Bash scripts are by-and-large hacky things written to solve a simple problem expediently. OpenAI's output code reflects this reality. Expecting OpenAI to write Bash code defensively is like expecting OpenAI to complete SMS messages with scientific english.

That last example is such a mic drop. I can’t tell if I’m impressed beyond belief or appalled.

I can't read this article because of the awful background color.

Damn, those examples are insanely good.