By "patched", you can't mean they added something to the internal prompt to show it how to answer this one specific question?!

Absolutely. There is a preflight guardrail that steers specific words, phrases, concepts with tweaked output.

I've speculated about this myself, but haven't heard anyone actually discuss it or reveal/leak this is the case. Do you have a source for this?

Such AGI wow!

Why do you think they’re on GPT 5.2 now?

> Because virtually all software is not novel.

That isn't true, not by a long shot. Improvements happen because someone is inspired to do something differently.

How will that ever happen if we're obsessed with proving we can reimplement shit that's already great?

At the code level it's still rehashing the same ideas over and over again. I wrote lots of things from software 3d on a weird system to jit to websites to telephony software to compilers to firmware for hardware to cloud orchestration and many other things and none of this was novel - someone wrote every single pattern from them before even if nobody put them together the same way. Putting known pieces together is not novel. And as a proportion, almost all software produced is just business apps of various types, with absolutely nothing novel in them.

Also from actual researchers, I know just one person who did something actually novel and it was with queuing.

> At the code level it's still rehashing the same ideas over and over again.

I agree that rehashing the same ideas over and over again is sufficient - for some strange, complacent definition of the word. It's not the only way to think about the discipline, and thank goodness enough smart people realize that.

> Also from actual researchers, I know just one person who did something actually novel and it was with queuing.

Think how many people have to be trying at any given time for it to happen at all.

Originally called Retriever, based on the domain. Trademark issues?

So it's a bunch of tools that Gemini can call, but the tools involve low-level interactions with the page structure in the end-user's browser.

What is the moat? What is an "agent" when you take away the powerful LLM?

    Rover lives inside your website

Rover does not just live "inside" my website, because you are using Gemini 3 Flash to do all the heavy lifting.

Who is the audience here? It sounds like you're addressing people who don't know how the technology works, but the cutesy concept is borderline misleading.

Also, can you back up this claim with a human-written response? (emphasis mine)

    When rtrvr.ai interacts with a webpage, there is zero automation fingerprint:

    No navigator.webdriver flag
    No CDP-specific JavaScript objects
    *No detectable automation patterns in network requests*
    *Identical timing characteristics to human interaction*

Thanks for taking a look!

So our core technical moat is building up an agentic harness that can represent and take actions on any webpage without any screenshots. With this approach we even beat custom trained models like OpenAI Operator and Anthropic CUA: https://www.rtrvr.ai/blog/web-bench-results

Everyone else in the space just takes a screenshot and asks a model what coordinates to click, our core thesis is that LLMs understand semantic representations fundamentally better than vision. But with this DOM approach there is a long tail of HTML/DOM edge cases to cover that we have built out for with the 20k+ users bringing these edge cases.

Soon you will be able to record demonstration tasks via our partner Chrome Extension as well as setup knowledge bases scraped by our Cloud browsers to provide additional context to the agent. So there is a platform moat as well.

The audience is website owners who want to increase visitor engagement and conversion via a conversational interface for users.

This is more for our cloud browser platform where we launch cloud browsers for vibe scraping controlled via a custom extension instead of CDP. You can try it out at rtrvr.ai/cloud, where we can get back some strong antibot detection sites like google.com

Maybe they don't want the idiots' money.

Gemini Flash Lite 3 preview within 10 days now, surely

Incredibly tricky topic, but seriously, if no child is actually harmed or victimized, this is thought crime.

I'm very puzzled at the positive comments it's getting. It's insanely, discourteously long for the number of distinct ideas in it. There's banal LLM-ish smirking quips, very little personality and a lot of repetition.

There's certainly no personal anecdotes of difficult problems which would go a long way to show the author actually knows their stuff.

It’s like thinking a lot of McDonald chicken nuggets are as good as buffalo wings and eating a whole bucket to realize.

You read a series of solid bullet points fleshed out semi-competently using AI, and given a slight human touch. It should be a quarter of this length at least.

I got the impression he tweaked bits of it. It's still extremely apparent though.

Slow media or die!

The particular niche of television Vince Gilligan has carved out for himself is endlessly fascinating to me.

With three shows over the course of 20 years, each more detached from the sensationalism of its predecessor, he (and it must be said, the creative team surrounding him, usually more than half women) has trained an audience to appreciate slower TV that takes its time and nevertheless works from moment to moment. On this count alone, he has my undying respect, as I think it's the biggest sort of success an artist can hope to have, to advance your point of view and come to be valued for it in itself.