18,948 karma · joined December 2, 2010
Bad evidence is worse than no evidence.
And you failed to address the specific criticism I made to your point, instead going for an ad hominem / poisoning the well.
In sum, you're out of line, woefully misled, and lacking in logical thinking. Three strikes, you're out.
Not too mention these companies could easily offer one product to enteprises and another to everyone else
Model nerfing is real
Such a simple concept but really remarkable work.
- All decisions get logged to DECISIONS.md, sequentially
- Before writing a decision, read through past decisions to see if any conflicts
- If no conflicts, encode the decision into the CODE.md
- If any conflicts, ask a Tribunal of 3 agents to find a resolution—each of them should be prompted in slightly different ways
I've only done this for one pretty big project but so far it seems to be working well
Thanks for the rec, I'm buying it just so I can explore their world a little bit.
First, do no harm.
Except there is. At the risk of mixing pop references, you're a Sith dealing in absolutes saying "doesn't look like anything to me".
Take the goat out and your life will improve right away!
No wonder it feels confusing.
That line is absolute gold
More like these are the people who didn't refuse
I guess lots of people are often wrong.
Can you provide an explanation for why their claim that (1) and (2) are the hardest parts is false?
Or perhaps provide an alternative definition of Mathematics that is more explanatory than the one they've provided?
I just wish people would snap out of it _eventually_
I'm currently negotiating with someone who I feel is clearly using AI and this is EXACTLY what has been happening