Aperocky
Jobs are a mean to make people consumers, not the only mean, but a significant one.
The ability to create more economic activity require both sides to catch up, so we will find a way to do so.
If the presenter can't divide a problem until it reaches a series of independently simple concepts, then there's usually something fishy going on.
When claude speak in convoluted mess, they are often going off on tangents in real work that you asked it to do, too.
And that 90% could be an underestimate here.
And yes, you can install gigantic plugins in those places - e.g. Codex; but the point is everyone will have exactly what they have customized towards. The more atomic a building block is, the easier it can be adapted into any kind of configuration.
I think the pain of selling a harness is if your target market understand what a harness is, then they can build it to exactly how they'd like it without much effort. If they don't, then the harness wouldn't be very useful to them in the first place.
This is almost exactly how mandarin is spoken in colloquial communication, context is almost always omitted if provided once, and grammar/tense is mostly non-existent either. Check out Singlish for something similar but understandable if you are not a mandarin speaker.
Being first could be luck, or it can be foresight.
The communication is more direct too with GPT5.6 family of LLM. No more belt and suspenders.
In my experience, no matter how many agent runs for a single goal, one of the pre-requisite is clear and concise communication so that LLM are left with as little freedom in the matter of arbitrary choices, or "taste". When they are given too much choices in this regard, the outcome almost invariably bad.
I think this has to do with LLM lacking in purpose - a dictionary and encyclopedia can have all the worlds knowledge but it is completely neutral. A reflection of your commands from an LLM is similar to a lookup process despite it can be made to "do things". This purpose is likely not something that can be given to the LLM in the current format.
The cycling guys won't buy it, they want the watts from their legs.
The commuters will just get an ebike eventually.
The getting started crowd will eventually become one of these 2 or stop riding a bike altogether. Since I didn't see how much this cost, if it cost as much as a commuter bike, I really don't know who would buy something like this.
There are not enough human 25 years old in history for this many 9s. You had 21 nines, which would only make sense if there were 10 billion billion humans ever and that he is the only one. However, the current estimate is there were 107 billion humans ever alive in history, so your statement is impossible even if the estimate is off by 10000 fold.
I recall reading a shampoo bottle in the bathroom maybe 25 years ago because there was nothing else to read.
Meanwhile now you are correctly complaining about how weird the scrolling feels like.
Someone will find a way to make cheaper compute, and since nothing fundamental changed there (LLM didn't change how silicon were made), that's bound to happen.
Amazon is listed as signatory, I doubt microsoft just decided for them.
Worth and productivity are synonyms in direction, wouldn't a better phrase not track either? It's difficult to answer anything other than naught without some mental gymnastics because the words themselves are implicit.
How about happiness? That is one human quality that is not directly tied to any of worth, value or productivity.
The argument is an endless slope and as such essentially pointless.
As someone with substantial "points" accumulated all a full decade ago, I can easily see why. If you only allow certain opinions and criteria for specific subjects, your user will eventually shrink to only the few that possessed them.
It's a Spartan death. Don't blame it on the Persians or Athens.
> monetizing these strengths
> real advantage over China is freedom
Please tell me if I'm unfairly paraphrasing but these seem to be your main argument and they seem to be oxymorons
They communicate through my own harness, and it's working pretty well so far. claude code is being overtaken by codex however because I noticed lately the accuracy of the latter is the best.
Unfortunately, this looks like the former case. If the software can execute arbitrary code/binary, and you place a malicious binary, that's up to you to secure/sandbox the workspace, not the software. Unless cursor commit themselves to securing the user environment, which I don't think they are in the business of.
If you are generating a CVE report with LLM, please use LLM responsibly in helping you reproduce deterministically. Then please do the write up yourself, keep it as concise as possible and strip most adjectives in any LLM generated sections as they cannot help themselves to write without mostly useless exaggerations.
Granted, the language servers are getting dusted, but it's much nicer to write goals in markdown in vim and send it to LLM in a self-written harness CLI; and even look at the results in the same way. All unix. LLM is just the latest toolbox addition.
Or phrase it in a very similar ask, why don't they invest in power plants? The model space is truly crowded, what do they gain or recover suppose they are SOTA? Across the Pacific they are pumping out free models that are only 6-12 months behind. What business sense does it make for Apple to develop their own models?