wpasc

pimp my agent

I'm no quant/hft/wall st person, but iiuc a lot of those trades happen in dark pools or by other means to make the positions they take hard to track. meaning you can't go get the receipts of every trade made by medallion fund nor some competitor

as a lawyer, can you speculate as to why anthropic/openai aren't facing many or any consequences for their agents? I'm not asking in a "grab the pitchforks" way. more out of genuine curiosity as my uninformed recollection of the CFAA is as you describe it.

Funnily enough, all the models are down and github statuses are all green

Look at the base of the structure on the right side, and you'll see that in the same plane there are the bumps present and bumps hidden by the same flat plane in a way they shouldn't be. then the left side, the bump visibility doesn't make lego sense

(i agree that maybe OP pointing that out is nitpicking, but to steelman the case, such inaccuracies are what code review would find and are the subtle bugs that might pass a code review and break prod)

I genuinely enjoyed the game of "where's waldo" that

> easily identifiable problems

sent me down. as soon as I parsed that line I stopped reading, and I tabbed back over to spot them

agreed on the notion that

> people are sleeping on the ChatGPT Work/Codex

just in general. I find it to be far superior (imo) for all tasks atm. Claude just overdoes things in writing, coding, architecture, etc

The author notes:

> One caveat: my experience comes mainly from working on infrastructure and developer tools at large companies, on teams where engineers have a lot of bottom-up autonomy to influence their roadmaps. In a more top-down environment, there may simply be less room to work this way.

I wonder if the overall trend in tech is that engineers are experiencing less bottom-up autonomy and more top-down controlled environments. I would be curious to see how many tech companies (or the average engineer's experience) have changed from being tech led where engineers have autonomy to being more product management led. My suspicion without evidence is that the overall engineering autonomy has decreased over the years as the culture of tech has (in my opinion) shifted away from tech focus to more business, management, product focus with engineers just as the widgets who are tasked with fulfilling the goals of business, management, product.

all hypothesis, only anecdata

This is the key seam that proves the investigation.

Two things to flag:

What's wild (imo) is pretty much everyone I talk to/read from (anecdata) HATES the way claude writes. I see it in the comments on Hacker News, hear about it in discussions with my colleagues, and talk about it with my non tech family. it's over the top bad. now it seems like these quirks will now be enforced in some weird way to meet the watermarking rules?

you beat me before I refreshed the page. what would you say... you do here?

THIS IS NOT A MUNDANE DETAIL MICHAEL

not OP, but i believe the commenter is referring to how GFC in '07 had wide ranging negative effects for a lot of people who had nothing to do with investments in mortgage backed securities

thank you for this comment, "wedge" has been one of the words that has been popping up in a lot of LLM writing i've seen lately. (source: it was me asking the LLM to summarize some features in a repo! the words "load-bearing" "wedge" "spike" "crux" and plenty others have been driving me crazy)

edit: as I keep reading the paper, I keep noticing some common sentence construction patterns, stylistic choices, and other little tics that I find frustrating because they are the very same things that I've been working on a few "writing-style skills" to get rid of

leaving the word 'forced' aside (purposefully), pension funds, 401k holders, and many passive investors end up buying these things. you're right that no one is "forcing" them, but people who try to invest responsibly with little control over the day-to-day which is most people place trust in the institutions who do that investing for them.

I don't think that the claim of "the Nasdaq is misusing their institutional trust" is a controversial claim. Moreover, one of the things that people choose when they (401k, pension funds, passive investors) is institutional mechanisms that prevent potentially mispriced items from entering their portfolios.

I agree with you, but every non-engineer I know using these tools 100% will drag and drop a PDF into a chatbot. Anthropic and OpenAI as companies who are selling their products to all sorts of businesses should have a much better means of handling this nightmare of a format because it is so pervasive and so obviously what so many of their customers are going to drop into the product.

my friend, I was being sarcastic before, and I am agreeing with you. LoC, token spend, etc as metrics are horrible measures. Software uptime is a great metric. I'm merely lamenting that in the age we're in, uptimes are getting worse and worse

For sure there are very optimized ways to do it. My point is that a non technical user will drag and drop a pdf into a chatbot. and from a UX/product perspective, they should have to think about it more than that IMO. but seemingly, that's very much an expensive, inefficient way of doing it (burning through a whole context window try to read it, reloading it multiple times per conversation, etc.).

measuring uptime? I've seen Anthropic's status page, and they are a >$1 Trillion dollar company who "largely solved" coding. so clearly you aren't correct. /s

One thing I find fascinating as a software engineer who talks to non software engineers who use AI tools is how "reading PDFs" is not more of a solved problem. What I mean is that uploading a PDF into a chatbot tool seems to be an extraordinarily obvious use case that non technical (and technical) users would want to do.

IMO claude, chatgpt/codex, etc should be able to optimize the PDF use case to be extremely token efficient as it's a very obvious use case. But when I start to explain to my wife/friends why it burns through so much quota, I find myself thinking "why should they have to understand this aspect of it". to me, that the details of PDF parsing and extracting are relevant to users (instead of solved such that you don't have to pay attention to it) shows how these tools are not nearly as "ready" as they are made out to be. I may be preaching to the choir on this one, but just my 2c

I see some tools like this that keep popping up (don't mean that in a bad way! it's clearly exciting and the README itself compares itself to similar tools). however, for coordination strategies like this, aren't you always having to use token-based pricing via some API Key? that's the largest think that holds me personally back from getting into something like these frameworks. With a claude code max plan, all my delegation and coordination has to be done within a session (between some agents) with persisted artifacts. Unless I'm missing something that has changed?

Perhaps it's all moot as the usage you get from a subscription plan will eventually no longer be subsidized. Also, I have to wonder about what layers of coordination done externally to a model can be persistently better than within tool coordination? Like, with an anthropic feature like agent teams, I feel like it might be tough to beat anthropic native coordination of various Claude sessions because they might have better internal tool and standards awareness, which makes feeling like plugging something like this more difficult unless one's goal is to plug something like this into an open source model.

Geniunely curious how other people are thinking about this!!

Edit: I actually see that this tool claims that it can run within your existing Claude Code subscription, so now I'm extra interested.

I was also just recommended this interview on youtube. honestly it makes sense if the algo decided it was the right time to recommend this video and resultantly this post is making it's way to front page of HN

For once, one might actually get fired for buying/hiring IBM

but what would you say... you do here?

genuinely curious if you have some sources I can read on the subject? most of the benefits/papers I've seen have not touched on or included studies for patients on GLP's where weight loss was ruled out as the factor?

im surprised this is earning such downvotes. idk about the "opinionated" vm perspective but I think it needing its own engine oe not is at least something worth considering. firefox has been my go-to alt browser for years as my backup to chrome. it was what I would use to "test again in another browser" but as time has gone by, more and more stuff just doesn't work on firefox :(

not height per se, but d2f

I thought the FDA guideline was once the internal temperature reaches 160 or 165 or something it didn't need to sustain that temperature? it was only the lower temperatures that required some duration to achieve the same log reduction as reaching 160/165?

Are you certain the person you just replied to is not in a marginalised group? If that person is, would you be running afoul of that law with "Don't be a moron."?

Any chance you mean the ACA? (affordable care act). GP I think is talking about the AMA as a body that artificially constrains the supply of dr's (at least that is my guess as GP also mentions reducing limits on building hospitals).

IMO the GP is touching on removing regulatory burdens (more traditionally republican/conservative ideas) and adding in funding/care via medicare for all etc (democrat position). the combination of reducing/improving/simplifying regulatory burdens while increasing government spending seems to be a combination of ideas that hasn't been winning enough support. afaik, Ezra Klein in his book Abundance is one of the only voices trying to push this balance.