_pdp_

I don't really think there is much future for TypeSafe but I wish them well. In fact, I like them.

Jev is just a reminder that you can use more "traditional" forms of AI (that are not LLMs) and still get remarkable results.

We tend to forget that.

That was a surprise and that is why it went viral.

It will be nice if it had persistent URLs and and SDK for desktop applications. It could solve a lot of small issues for a project I am currently busy with.

AI needs tools as much as humans do.

It will be solved when there is no more code left to write.

Code is an abstract concept that is not bound to the physical world and I imagine that future will have some much more of it that it is difficult to comprehend. Everything will be code and more code will be written than ever before.

Code will never going to be solved. The question is how much humans will be involved and I think the evidence is that perhaps just a bit. However, because we are talking about vast libraries of code even if we are involved in under 1% of all code and decision making that is needed around the code, there are still not enough developers out there to take on the task.

I might be wrong :)

So true. The real use-case outside of the 2-3 specialised domains are yet to come... if they come at all.

They wont. This is OpenAI specific. They don't even have support for OpenAI realtime models.

However, this open source project https://github.com/chatbotkit/platform/ does and you can plug OpenRouter or OpenAI keys straight in while keeping your integration work generic. The only downside is hosting it yourself but it is just docker compose up.

There are vendor neutral solutions too https://github.com/chatbotkit/platform

Is this even public?

How do you judge which one produces the best result? They all look the same to me more or less.

I think this might work.

When I started working no the trading agent I mentioned above I wanted to see if it can be just a better investor over the long run. The intention was not to do high-frequency trading. As you can see most of the days it is not taking any actions. The losses where down to mistakenly setting the stop losses too close to the top. If it wasn't so careful it might have made some money tbf.

My gut feeling is that AI agents will be able to manage a long-term portfolio much better than a human. Though it is just a gut feeling.

If this worked it wouldn't have been open source?

Anyway, I have been running my own trading experiment and so far it has lost a bit of money. That being said I have not tried to optimise anything - just let it do whatever it wants. The losses are small and it might be able to recover later this year. Who knows.

The agent writes a blog about its progress here https://trades.chatbotkit.space/

I am thinking to output all the chat logs to HF as well for research.

You can run your own trading agents that communicate over a message buss in your own terms by downloading the CBK platform and running it locally with your own models. I have also shared my trading blueprint if you want to give it a go. https://chatbotkit.com/hub/blueprints/trader

GitHub. Then you symlink them into the relevant folders. You can write a skill to manage them for you across all harnesses as well.

Great initiative. Also add

https://github.com/chatbotkit/platform

...if it fit the project direction.

It is basically a sovereign AI platform for agent orchestration and automation and app building.

I like the looks of Aisle and what they stand for...

That being said you cannot compare a model with a specialised harness. These are two completely different things.

Am I missing something?

I get that. However, given that sessions are local and personal why tag it into the public source tree when it can keep a catalogue within the local session metadata with the exact branch, tags and refs. Sounds like easier less intrusive thing to do.

Respect

Because Linux is not an OS.

I really hate this attribution nonsense ...

On one hand I guess it is fine to automatically tag that the commit was AI-generated. On the other hand, this will happen even if you audit every line and add your own changes too, which means the attribution is misleading.

My point is that it is a great way to learn and be more appreciative of what is done and why - network stacks, graphic stacks, web, etc - before being too critical of them.

Besides, statements such as "$7B for a proxy" or "it is just a wrapper" or "we can build it in-house" mostly come from those that have not had any measure of the scope due to not having any real experience with the said problem.

Everyone should build their own ** is the general advise I would give just about anything. Otherwise it is hard to appreciate how much effort it goes into things that we take for granted.

Everything looks simple from the outset until you try to build it yourself.

Most security bugs are due to improper string validation and use.

Nothing to see or learn from... move on.

Lol. Is anyone actually taking this seriously?

We are talking about the process but not the result. I think the results will speak for themselves.

IDK In my experience humans do go into doom loops.

Well if the recipe requires access to some secret ingredient it may as well resort to hacking to obtain it. ;)

I might have a different definition of "rogue" but to me it means when you go outside of the rules/norms ... and this is happening all the time.

All computer primitives are relatively straightforward in pure form and vastly more complicated in real-world scenarios.

> we are just a couple of steps from the possibility of a true rogue AI

No no. We are not a couple of steps away. This is happening. AI is already used for hacking and creating a harness that makes this fully autonomous is relatively straightforward.