manmal

It would take longer to train on intercepted Fable data, no?

Read the session file of the reviewer tomorrow. Sonnet should suffice.

Fighting against the weights is often a lost cause. For any model.

The best agentic developers are now probably exceeding 100x, doing massive rewrites of codebases that would have taken years of engineering in days

I‘m not denying that you can get far with a port of a well tested codebase. But it’s a bit of a selective example, no? Porting a large framework to Rust is not something that’s making up a meaningful fraction of a developer’s time usually. It’s also a bit of a luxury IMO, and something you could have skipped entirely.

The trend to put acoustic panels or an imitation of their pattern on _everything_ is one of my pet peeves. They create some stroboscobe effect with my (not normal) vision. The result is that they mess with my 3D perception and break my brain a bit for that reason. I’d rather not have them put anywhere.

I think you’re probably overthinking it. The same model will in my experience find errors in the same thing it just generated. I think reviewing is a totally different place in latent space, than implementing. Anyhow, it works well for me.

I often tell codex to launch a subagent without prior context to „remove BS phrases and make the prose sound more natural and higher readability“. That‘s usually enough to get better results.

I’d recommend to instead write a de-slop skill that instructs to launch a sub agent with fresh context, and analyze for such phrases in the new commits, and remove those. Find -> fix just works better than preemptive instructions, in my experience.

And if you manage to do this automatically before committing, you’ve built the backpressure everybody is talking about.

I don't think that's opinions, but, rather, going wherever the wind blows.

There is no MacBook Pro with OLED (yet).

I‘ve built this anti-k8s stance pre-LLMs, and just realized that, actually, agents should be pretty helpful in dealing with it? Is avoiding kubernetes still advisable for projects that will likely never use its full complexity, given how easy it is to maintain now?

Why would I ever use a local model by that logic? A usable model means my computer was very expensive so I‘d have the funds for a Pro plan as well.

I would just, not wait for things to finish because it’d be instant? No need to create slop just because something is faster.

TIL there will be 35 degrees Celsius in London today. I thought that basically never happens. I remember people telling me a few years ago that they are lucky to ever get 30 degrees.

While my colleagues are running 6 parallel agents at 50-100t/s each, with an actual SOTA model? Don’t you think I‘d get fired after a few weeks of that?

But what is it doing for you that you couldn’t do yourself at that speed? I‘m really curious and on the fence of partly going local.

but the speed is a consequence of the design, not the pitch.

You kinda lost me there. I‘m supposed to use a central technology whose author can’t be arsed to write a few paragraphs?

I don’t agree with 2). It’s ok to qualify. Sounds sycophantic to not do it.

Carmack might think that there are certain areas he will be better due to decades of experience. Overall programmer isn’t a bad qualifier at all, it’s actually making it sound less offhand and more honest.

Have you tried the 27B dense version? It’s way better for coding.

Sure, and the body makes its own glucose. The only way to deplete that is prolonged fasting.

If you‘re specifically aiming for low glutamine, going vegan won’t cut it though, depending on what foods you leave in. Soy is high in it. Eg a glass of milk is lower glutamine than a serving of tofu.

Isn’t glutamine also part of vegan diets? I don’t eat meat myself, but your assertion has me wondering about glutamine.

May I ask, how much money you have spent so far on this effort?

I think author meant he vibe coded some deterministic system. Maybe comparing the whole genome to a healthy one, and pointing out all diffs?

Why do I need shortcuts though, I want that to be transparent.

If they are using some mid model and are stingy with web search, I won’t use it more than a couple times.

Are you not worried about where your data will end up? By now I‘m feeding things to Codex that I‘d rather not have in a leak.

Usually when they push back, it’s for obvious reasons, things I already know and actively decided to ignore. They are trained on mediocre software, and it shows.

I like using voice input a lot, I get way more info out of my brain and into the context that way.

Process wise, for bug fixes I usually just throw the ticket in and optionally some thoughts on how to fix. But if I don’t know the cause, I let it write instrumentation tests until the bug is reproed, and then the fix is easy.

For new features in brownfield projects, I usually need to align with team members because we‘re closely aligned between platforms. We iterate on what you could call a spec, which is just a mix of requirements, magic numbers we want, algorithms we‘ve picked (often by vibing prototypes), and sometimes going very specific on parts that must be done right. Eg for interfaces with other teams, and there’s not yet a document to describe that, we put that in the spec as well. We do use agents to shoot holes in those specs, and often they find inconsistencies. But architecturally, they seem to get caught up too much in what’s already in those specs, and personally I haven’t seen any worthwhile feedback that I‘d have taken up.

Sometimes we use this spec to vibe a first draft. Often the draft is so good that it can be bent to our liking. Sometimes, it just serves as a reservoir of ideas, and the feature must be implemented (with assistance) by re-assembling the pieces differently.

Sorry I have to ask. How senior are you? The notion that I‘d allow an agent to talk me out of something seems weird. 99% of cases, it’s the other way around. Architecture is just not where they shine.

Usually there’s some environmental disturbance eventually, that makes it burst.

That’s an interesting proposition, are you saying people do TDD just for the heck of it?