ricardobeat

This practice of having the one provider should be eliminated. Companies self-inflict lock-in to large platform providers, prevent their own teams from using better technology options and stifle innovation. It's crazy that even with a pile of SOC/ISO/PCI/HIPAA/NIS certificates, procurement is still a months-long process, it should be much easier to do business.

What are you running it on? I'm getting mixed results using the IQ3_XXS quant which supposedly matches baseline, it feels significantly degraded.

This is like creating a markov chain bot and naming it ChetGPT.

Plan mode has become pointless since Opus 5 came out, they know when to switch between planning and execution now. But that iteration/discussion is still necessary unless you're building completely blind - the model cannot read your mind.

I've had it running 8h+ of non-stop optimizations, chasing a performance target, rewriting systems or building a series of prototypes for research. All it needs is a clear goal.

So.. they continue having access to private identifiers, while you willingly give it up to "protect privacy"? Piping all of that data into a massive central database instead of your nginx logs? How is this supposed to be better?

Because with a tiny model you're skipping all the intelligence and world knowledge that makes it useful without fine tuning. `typed-decisions` is almost entirely text classification tasks.

In my experiments decider-4B performs better than Kev with significantly lower latency. It's remarkably good for it's size, shame it wasn't included in the benchmarks. Laya on the other hand shouldn't even be featured - despite being 'the original' decision model, it can only do simple text classification and is nowhere near usable performance for anything else.

All of which would require shipping a compiler along with the app.

I enjoyed Pi for a few weeks, but ultimately moved to other harnesses - the plugin ecosystem became a sea of slop, large vibecoded projects that don't work at all, and yet have thousands of stars. At some point I gave up trying to get subagents working.

This is the case since Opus 5, the latest models (from all providers) favor using shell tools instead of the View/Edit tools available in the harness, and “accept edits” doesn’t let those calls through. Auto mode is the best option.

“Nerfing is a myth” - “I made an imaginary chart to show you why”

Please don’t post AI generated replies.

This will only work for simple text classification tasks, which is the least interesting possible use of Jev.

You might be overusing subagents. Especially with a chatty model like DS, you’ll be wasting millions of tokens on re-discovering the project and facts instead of actual reasoning.

That is the "joke" here - you can switch to Hurricane Sandys, Earthquakes, Dynamite or Lightning Bolts at the bottom of the widget.

Your question is answered in the second paragraph on that page.

Then one of these is wrong. If this counter is at 4B, wouldn't we have evaporated 5% of the worlds oceans already?

This kind of dense sentence is extremely tiring to read:

    > I wanted to know whether the knife subreddits I read, and scrape for New 
    Knife Day, show any sign of that. Not a hunch about one suspicious comment, 
    but something I could count and someone else could recount.

Everyone should adopt this rule: if the author didn't take the time to write it, you shouldn't take the time to read it.

What do you regret exactly? I have found that friendships are rarely balanced in that sense. Sometimes you spend more (effort, worry, money) but it's also for your own benefit.

And yet nobody is doing that… big-token conspiracy

I really want open systems, but the “choose your browser”, “choose your app store”, “choose your email client”, “choose your ai provider” dance is a disgraceful user experience.

Companies should be allowed to set a recommended experience while staying open. Insisting that they offer choice as part of the UI is tangential to the OS allowing them to exist.

I mean, they worked really hard for this. Back in February everybody loved them.

At low and medium effort it is 1/3 cheaper, at high it’s a step above Opus/low. It only looks worse at xhigh.

The harness runs itself in a sandbox, Codex does the same. Then it can request approval for individual tool calls to be made outside that sandbox, depending on your permission mode. At least this is the case in MacOS.

I see what you mean now though - you can change the default permission mode with /config in CC, but it will indeed not make that change on your behalf.

This is pretty sane default behaviour. If it's sandboxed it really cant edit the file for you, you have to enable bypass/auto mode (shift+tab) so it can request a sandbox breakout, or run with --dangerously-skip-permissions.

The larger screens like the CYD are quite awful. Blue tinge, bad viewing angles, low brightness and slow touch response.

Which is a new architecture.

Yes, they can already do this by writing code, and you can train them to know how/when to do this. Fundamentally though, it’s still a “what color is the air” type of question after tokenization.

Calling it a 'failure mode' implies it could be fixed. This is an inherent flaw in how LLMs work and will never go away until some new kind of architecture that can actually "read text" comes along.

Is there some missing context here? Where was the author asked to resolve issues in private? And what 'private' channels would be available to them?