hmokiguess

Well said, once you put it out there in the world, then it's also about how will the customer react to it and having to own that relationship going forward.

The relationship aspect of a business has a lot to do with how effective it is at continuing to justify its core value in an easy and relatable way; especially so when the decision makers that front the bill may not be as engaged with the underlying machinery behind the why it works how it does.

Maybe it’s the fact that “the number” could refer to both 6 and 3 to this model?

I think the biggest lesson with Jev was the one of communication and understanding for the broader audience, sometimes a lot about innovating involves repeating yourself and translating your own thoughts to an intended audience.

Classical machine learning has been, for the most part, and just by the nature of science, behind academic terms and difficult to engage with as a product.

Jev did really well with coining up “System One” models and defining a standard application interface plus core primitives that landed in the current paradigm of software development.

I think it’s sort of like how Cursor reinvented autocomplete back then as a different UX and suddenly everyone was just using it because of how easy the bar was to understanding it.

Lastly, timing is everything. Just as Cursor had a first mover advantage, despite ML Ops being a thing for a while, they managed to encapsulate the concept behind a “System One” black box that fits the existing mental model for building software and shipping a data contract in the right point in time where the cost of tokens has been an important metric to watch.

Awwwww pspspspsps kitty kitty ^_^

Absolutely, and this is true to handwritten code as well. This is why code review, tests, constraints, and putting effort into the critical pieces of software is paramount to success.

I also would argue that in this case, the end result wasn't good but rather perceived good. It was good enough to pass a smoke test, but not an integration test, and end-to-end test, a runtime edge case, etc.

All of software development lifecycle should still apply and be relevant here, the tool just changes the rate at how it gets written and it is tempting to move faster and continue skipping other steps. Especially so in greenfield work as a solo founder with limited time.

I think at the end of the day, a good metric is your "give a shit quotient". How much do you give a shit about what you are doing is likely the most important thing into how it is going to perform.

Self awareness means would be taking a step back and knowing if you're caught in a vicious cycle, trap, loop, pursuing something mindlessly.

Discipline would be turning this into principles you practice constantly, it's more of a lifestyle rather than a skill you "obtain".

For example, starting from the position of "I am taking on an idea where I may have knowledge gaps in" you first prompt for research and validation rather than execution. Even if the end result is you were right on your original design. (Sort of a challenge, adversarial, by default)

It will slow you down, but may lead to more sticky results.

Yeah that's the other side of it, learning that is.

Before you would pause at overwhelming, now you get to "fail forward" with less at stake because the end result can still be verifiable even if the internals are a blackbox to you.

It's a sort of "deferred" and/or "optional" learning dilemma we now exist.

You could open the box, look inside, ask questions, but you would need to care and feel engaged, which is very hard to do when the result is already there.

This is why I framed it as requiring self awareness and discipline. Very easy to get caught into the slot machine dopamine cycle loop.

> The problem is that vibe coding makes it possible to build a substantial solution before learning enough about the problem to recognise that a much better solution exists.

This example and Bend aside, I find this to be the biggest struggle with the perceived intelligence we have today. It's great at producing something that works, but it is not great at calling you out when you don't know what you don't know.

It's not able to educate and course correct you unless you have great self awareness and discipline.

That said, I think this goes for everything, it's easy to fall into this trap because it is very human. We simply don't know what we don't know, so it's not uncommon to revisit an old solution only to be enlightened that there is now new information that allows you to replace it with something much better.

I don't think anything here is new or changed, if anything changed is really just the rate that we experience this. LLMs make it easier and faster for the feedback cycle to happen.

Now back to Bend, I think putting your work out there and being unapologetic about it, open source even, and willing to take feedback, will go a long way.

I am more worried about the many closed source implementations of LLM built products that are being sold and people are depending upon that don't get this great criticism from many different thinking heads.

This one seems more interesting: https://github.com/vinnylarouge/jevlike

We*

We Hate You Microsoft.

So sad that commit history is a thing we can feel emotionally attached to a point of feeling vulnerable when releasing it with others.

Also equally sad that without a way to relate easily with how something came to be (e.g. the commit history) others will struggle focusing at the work and will judge its lineage.

I guess to folks here confused by that go search SrPeixinho on Reddit and that should have a lot of history for you to understand the background of the work, and you can also join their Discord server and literally talk to them there.

I'll give you 100 Robux how's that

Most meeting software nowadays has a “queue” system which lets you put your hand up. I think that has been a perfect solution to me. In large calls you also have moderators and mute controls.

Well, in my case I am more than glad to be missing on this fun is my point.

I think I wouldn't be able to function well in a work environment that had this kind of setup for their meetings on a regular basis, it would feel very draining to me.

I would be certainly open to it infrequently, or as an opt-in, but if the workplace moves towards this direction I know I would struggle.

Some people aren't very self aware of their own bubble and how luck plays a role in their life.

I'm gonna guess they will blame AI and say we need more AI safety, bonus if they claim it was an open weight model.

Don't forget written in Rust

I don't know man, I think I am not the right audience for this. I think online meetings are fine as is, I want to spend less time on them and more time connecting in real life.

I have been working remotely for a decade now, with fully remote teams, and we never felt the need for a deeper bonding in the form of work meetings that are more casual.

That said, if we want this kind of experience, online gaming already gives us that. I see lots of members of the team hanging out by discord and in gaming platforms.

Looks cool, but I don't want it. That's just my opinion.

Totally, it's really a whole bunch of theatre to sustain an economy of leeches and middleman on your margins.

I have been doing some greenfield work as a solo founder in a fully agentic workflow for a while now, and I mostly find these “frameworks” don’t work for me.

I am not yet convinced this space has been claimed in a way like say how “React” became the framework of choice in frontend development.

These initiatives all seem to tackle a “nice to have” or “quality of life” impact in the workflows in my opinion. Haven’t yet seen a proposal that addresses the larger problems, which, I think are even hard to quantify and explain still.

AI is great as a writing aid, still bad as a reading aid. To me the bottleneck remains the human and how can you help the human make better and more informed steering decisions backed by data driven and verifiable proofs against your system.

The organizing aspect of information feels like a step towards the bigger picture but not that much of a leap yet.

I don't know what to say, your demo is really bad. I cannot understand what the person was speaking after you altered the sound, this approach doesn't make sense to me.

My point with above is to criticize their strategy, I have been losing faith on Anthropic and feeling like they are throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks in a more desperate fashion rather than careful one. This sort of decision to me, alongside all their other initiatives recently with shipping agentic PaaS rather than enabling others to build with their tools has been a miss on thoughtful leadership. Sorry for the snark take, thank you for moderating.

[flagged]

> What I find so fascinating about all of this is just how separated this group was from the rest of history, and that there will never be a finding like this ever again. The world has effectively been explored, but as late as 1930 that wasn’t the case.

Honestly, I am not so sure about this.

This whole thing is still all too weird, the disclosing blog post and whatnot clearly shows how carefully engineered and designed it all was, it's like many thinking heads and hands touched it every step of the way. What amazing times.

Given the build is from 2023 one would expect that at least the token would have been rotated, and I suspect some of these compliance checks do require rotation of tokens/passwords.

That said, the whole compliance industry is a joke.

An easily preventable issue with proper engineering culture around defense in depth and principle of least privilege, awful look on Baseten here.

Kudos for Strix to find it, and especially with how it chose to disclose and report it.

That's so cool. I feel like society did a bad job passing on the torch of that throughout history to the newer generation, especially outside the US (I'm not an American), so a lot of us are really disconnected with what went down outside of the US.

Thank you so much for this, I am super excited for this read, you made my day!

I'm not gonna lie, I'm closer to a conspiracy theorist and non-believer than I am to trust history on the moon landing stuff. Doesn't help that I wasn't alive when it happened, and that we haven't since gone again. It feels so nonsensical to me, I would love for someone to help me educate myself on it from a more grounded point of view that can satisfy my paranoia. Did we really go there? How come we (as in humanity, any other nation whatsoever) haven't gone again since?