mceleri

I like the idea to consider the token cost for the candidate, good. But why not keep it "on paper", asking how the candidate would use an LLM or agent and why? Actually using an agent means asking the candidate to deliver something that you must validate. And you then need to evaluate the candidate by looking at the output of the LLM indirectly. Isn't it better to directly ask the candidate to explain how an LLM could be used (or if/when it should be used) for your use cases?

At the end of the day, it is the same old 'interview coding game' problem, and I suspect it is working even worse now, using LLMs and agents.

You could reduce (maybe remove) the central keys management using Biscuits. I wrote a similar idea here: https://github.com/mceleri/attenuated-agent-budgets

Is different because my point is to use fiat payments, but the Biscuits attenuation logic should work great also for your case, with the orchestrator that can split a budget for his sub-agents on his side, without (ora at least reducing) API calls.

Antigravity app, that seems just a wrapped browser. And yes, the browser as client of the deployed apps.

Hi, very interesting but are you sharing some technical details somewhere?

It looks to me that most engineers are between the AI entusiasts, not Luddites. We love to use it, we build tools around it, trying to optimize the whole chain... And so on, as always. I think your reasoning is more for startups and software houses than for engineers, because if the software cost go to "zero", a single engineer still have something to do. A company can't survive without good margins.

Well... Elliptic curve cryptography is also used in many other systems and connections, so yes, we would all notice if a mathematical trick broke it.

Dev guy here, so tailscale + Antigravity (+ GitHub). I use it to vibecode from my smartphone

I can't find any tech details, can we find some code/paper/docs somewhere?