jester997

Were you standing on top of the car at the time?

Not the nipples, but the t-shirts that let them through. Unless you’re JVN put them away!

Assume the computer does not have a modem of any sort!

The fix is taking them off the internet, use DOS, and require manual insertion of a floppy to make updates.

I met a space alien! His name is Grok and he talks to me when I’m sleeping.

It’s a joke…

Lawyers would be better suited to argue what programming is because they know logic. There’s not much to algorithms: do this, then do that.

Programmers typically don’t know law outside of which license allows them to get code for free.

I guess I should change my password.

Just grow a scraggly and comb it down. Venture capitalists wear t-shirts that show their nipples on stage, so what’s the shame in a long scraggly.

This day and age you might call that debate club. :)

Yes it’s for the worse. Not necessarily because AI in general but because it’s all so new no one knows what the result of using it in the classroom will be. So, consider yourselves an experiment of the “disruptive education” enterprise.

My advice: read lots of real books. Go to the library and study with real books even (especially) if it takes longer.

Fossil doesn’t have GitHub PR capabilities per-se. But its design philosophy is different with a focus on smaller groups of devs and not so much drive-by patches. I think in the case being discussed for AI agents, it can be simplified.

If you want human review on the code I’m thinking keep it simple and just review in branches/tags before merging OR even just have loose patch files.

As we’re seeing with resurgence of command-line utility by agents, that extends equally well to the O.G. diff/patch. A PR is literally just a diff with commentary and an approval process prior to merging. Diffs can be attached to forum topics and so-forth.

Lots of possibilities, but I think the main thing discussed here is how is version control better suited to AI agents moving forward.

What is beads?

I am curious what people think about the use case that is different for AI agents compared to humans. Aside from the things people use SCM for already that is.

Fossil fits the bill if you ask me because it has built in forum and stuff too, so Agentic discourse can happen there, commits happen in the SCM history. And it has auto sync so they can automatically sync their state.

It’s amazing at debugging too. I had it running in Powershell controlling an lldb session in MSYS2. The way it can read addresses and so root cause analysis is amazing! It takes a lot of mind power to do those things.

I like to watch it work though because it honestly teaches me some tricks.

The next platform for Agentic SCM is just… Fossil. Fossil is an SQLite database that can store anything an agent would ever need.

Well, no this doesn’t make sense. If you think about intent, most psychologists probably want to help people’s mental health. Prostitutes, although they offer a service that helps some people, I’m sure their motivation is primarily financial.

Yeah it should just state thing it means. But then again, there’s psychological impacts on society that we must be careful. For instance, teenagers talking to AI. If the AI just talks, people already start to feel real connections to the seemingly human entity. Maybe it’s better to disclose the reality up front?

I dunno about this. Haven’t used Niri but it looks like a scroll from 2000 years ago.

And that brings me to books, which haven’t changed all that much in 700 years.

And the desktop metaphor hasn’t changed much either, probably because it’s metaphor for how we do things in the real world: on a desktop with documents and pencils, organized how we want them.

I don’t want my desktop to change in fact all the attempts have largely failed because they don’t model how we as humans work in real life, with a bit of friction and a dash of chaos.

EDIT: the few places I welcomed changes are: (1) snapping windows; (2) well integrated search. Where we can improve I think is multi modalities. For example, “open my taxes document, please” and an AI opens it for me, then I presume to place it myself.

So, my thought is that the paradigm holds and will stand the test of time. Where it will change is: imagine you’re a business exec from the 1950’s and you have workers fetching documents for you, organizing things, and bringing the important parts back. For those important parts, we’ll use the traditional metaphor or some derivation thereof.

So, it will graduate from “desktop” to “office space”. AI agents will occupy their own cubicles. And you’ll be the boss in the corner office with a good view.

“…excluded from some of the only work it's easy to get quickly…”

The platform enables anyone to interact with clients having minimal training except a drivers license. They are operating as agents of the corporation just classified as adjunct “gig workers.” Read: a loop hole to abdicate responsibility and blame the workers while the company makes money on them with minimal overhead.

Imagine an app where anyone could be an underpaid nurse, and said nurse poisons a patient with fentanyl. Who’s to blame then? The company for lack of oversight or the nurse? Or both?

The driver IS the bad guy. Any driver who stops and forces their customers onto a freeway doesn’t know how to drive, let alone shuttle people around for money. They would rather put people at risk than spend an hour cleaning their car. This is practically the definition of criminal negligence.

Honestly Disney+ app is the gold standard. No auto play like Netflix. Classy and thoughtful design. Amazon is the worst. Those Buy Now buttons on commercials good God what a load of crap.

If you don’t punish the corporation they won’t ensure they vet their employees and have strict policies and procedures around handling customers.

So in my mind the driver was at fault criminal negligence, but when the driver can be any untrained pleb with a phone, the company assumes the risk and should be held liable.

Honestly you probably want a model that has only been trained on language and literature. Nothing from online discourse.

And even then… writing is personal expression. Here people are talking about commit messages. That’s fine but AI doing writing for anyone and I WILL NOT READ IT unless it’s literally basic tech manual.

We read to hear and engage with people’s thoughts. If someone outsources that to AI then they should be shunned.

We have the printing press from Gutenberg and so-on and so-forth, then Maxwell equations and Einstein. No computers just pencils and paper, maybe some chalk and slate. No need for AI driven global machine powered brains. Do the work, either you’ll get a discovery or someone will build on your work and make a discovery in the future. The electrical grid might go down, though. Or hacked by an AI swarm. Then we’re stuck with pencil and paper, chalk and slate. :)

“How much work do humans waste replicating failed approaches?”

It’s not the destination, it’s the journey to get there. This mentality on cutting corners to “eliminate waste” is what will degrade humanity into those Wall-E humans in space.

For example, if we just say, “Oh, someone did this already, why bother?” Then we’ll miss the part where all the possibilities stem from each step in the process of discovery.

Do what you love to do. Solve problems people have already completed. That’s where perspective comes from. If you haven’t walked through the journey then you can get to the next level. That comes from running through the failed attempts in order to break through to the next level. Don’t worry about what people have and haven’t done. If you’re doing something enjoyable, then that’s all that matters.