sathish316

Interviews need to test for expertise and beginner’s mind, and it’s not necessarily the same question or round that needs to test for both.

Don’t be evil, unless there is billions of dollars involved

- Fell 330 hectares of forest for Data Center 1

- Fell 200 hectares of forest for Data Center 2

I’ve found that Agents cannot differentiate between a general principle or abstraction to be followed vs a one-off code review comment that’s applicable only to a single PR.

Lack of this capability makes automated principles or patterns update a recipe for more bloat.

Worth watching this before reading the traces. This came before the publicly available traces - https://youtu.be/xOi5nDH0lu0?si=WuzW2GGXv054YvPN

A quick AI search confirms that both the YouTube video and Traces agree on the mechanism of the attack

It’s autoslop can become an adjective for Generative AI content whether it’s hidden or not. It’s so AI - can mean different things to different generations - derogatory for Gen Alpha and like a good thing for older generations

AI seems like a better derogatory adjective for most AI generated tweets, comments, blogs, reels, slop grenades that’s thrown at us these days. I wish a better adjective or slang comes along that clearly means inauthentic content

Isn’t this on GitHub login? I didn’t need to use X to login

I just hate Microsoft and used to love GitHub. I can understand why Github is down with the current insane rates of Commits, PRs, Agents calling GH CLI etc and I hope they find a way back to 3 9s availability.

Git is meant to be a dvcs (distributed version control system) and I remember doing this in the early days of Git to point to any remote when the central repository or provider was down.

Is it possible to create mirrors of every repo with no Microsoft dependency or until someone else acquires GitHub from Microsoft and makes it more reliable (maybe Elon Musk like he did with Twitter)? This can solve for commit/push/pull when GitHub is down, but not for Pull requests and reviews.

Matthew Walker’s Why we sleep book and his podcasts changed my perspectives on the importance of sleep - https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/34466963-why-we-sleep

I’ve used the following teach skill by mattpocock to learn Java concurrency concepts in 20 bite-sized hands-on lessons starting from creating a new thread to building a Thread-safe Connection pool. I’m pretty sure I can adapt this to learn Concurrency in any language like Go or Rust.

https://github.com/mattpocock/skills/tree/main/skills/produc...

The point is not that I’m learning Concurrency in a better way using LLMs, it’s that I can apply this style of learning using bite-sized, hands-on, visual explanations, quiz to any topic in the future. The lessons it generates are just code, and you can ask it to type check the examples, validate with recent libraries, use analogies to learn something better.

Try it before thinking it’s just ELI5 or Summarization or assuming it’ll be hallucinating without verifying facts.

+1, you can customize it to learn any topic concisely, learn by doing, add challenges, add visual explanations

https://github.com/mattpocock/skills/tree/main/skills/produc...

What does it mean when Fable 5 is 1st place and Opus 5 is 3rd place, while Claude code is 7th place? Which model and effort is used for Claude in 7th place, compared to 1st and 3rd?

I’m of course saying there are infinite ways to implement a non-trivial feature.

If you’re working on an app or software that has few users, no revenue or minimal revenue, tolerance to bugs is higher and just another Claude prompt away, Software factories are a perfect fit. Most personal software or hobby software or 0-1 yet-to-find-PMF startups belong in this category.

You can even take a stand that you’ll never look at the code and just ship. This is a perfect equilibrium for a Software factory, where the only input or feedback is a one-liner/specced requirement and the only output is outcome of whether the one-liner requirement worked or not.

For almost any other software that does not fit this criteria, software factories are yet to solve the Intent and Subjective Quality problem.

I call it the Intent-Implement-Quality problem.

Software factories can implement anything given a one-liner requirement. That one-liner requirement can be a complete app/product, epic, feature, bug, design change or refactoring. But these one liner requirements are requirements coming from a human who has an intent or requirement or direction for the product to evolve in mind. Can Software factories manufacture intent that reflects the exact requirements of the person using it or their vision of how the product or software should evolve?

Implementation in any language is as easy as generating a summary for an LLM. If coding is only math and there is only one way to translate a requirement into an implementation, the problem boils down to just providing or verifying generated intent. But, there is definitely more than one way to implement a thing and one of the ways leads to a design and architecture that is coherent with rest of the system, design and architecture that is extensible and evolves, code that you can keep in your head when you want to change things next time or tomorrow, software that can serve millions of users and securely guarantee millions of dollars of revenue. There is a combinatorial explosion of ways and the one right way is also subjective of the person and the problem. Software factories can of course improve Quality by generating more unit tests, more integration tests, fix code violations, generate Proof of work as videos, screenshots etc, but there is no feedback loop or test suite to verify and correct the other subjective notions of Quality.

Cmux notifications does this too

Feel the AGI of next-word or next-number carbs prediction

A job is something where you exchange Skills and Time for Money. Most self-respecting creators/workers will not agree to trade Skills, Time, Privacy, Self-esteem for Money.

Last time I checked, Facebook is not a thing other than for watching AI generated content, Instagram is still a thing to watch mind-numbing content and get distracted from other problems by doomscrolling.

It’s same as language translators and RLHF annotators doing work to contribute to AI training data. Is Facebook or Instagram solving a problem for humanity that’s worth selling your soul? Won’t a job that can be automated with AI training data of clicks and typing, markdown files, next function prediction with no coherence be significantly worse than a job that requires creativity?

How much of this is due to Microsoft Culture of not innovating and buying leading companies with their revenue from windows/office and slowly destroying the aspects of companies that made them great in the first place?

Is all the recent GitHub downtime entirely attributable to GitHub AI Copilot related development? How hard can it be to reduce the blast radius of new AI features to not affect the core parts of hosting repositories? Because of Copilot everywhere, The UX has become bad and I had to click all over the place and on my profile to find repositories.

Instructions on How to build a self-modifying single-purpose agent using AgentKernel here - https://x.com/sathish316/status/2036092222953951364?s=46

This is similar to using OpenClaw for a specific usecase, but without most of the complexities or security implications of OpenClaw.

This is surprisingly good, once you create multiple copies and use each copy as a specialized agent. Maybe we don't need OpenClaw just to manage email, calendar, slack, todo lists etc using natural language.

Agent-kernel has personality, persistent memory, self-modifying capability, using Skills is same as using Skills from Claude code.

Some of the good quotes or analogies in this article:

1 - “It seems like 99% of society has agreed that code is dead. …It's the same as thinking storytelling is dead at the invention of the printing press. No you dummies, code is just getting started. AI is going to be such a boon for coding.“

2 - Another one comparing writing and coding, and explaining how Code is both a means and an end to manage complexity:

“we're confused because we (incorrectly) think that code is only for the software it produces. It's only partly about that. The code itself is also a centrally important artifact… I think this is a lot clearer if you make an analogy to writing. Isn't it fucking telling that nobody is talking about "vibe writing"?”

Does this imply LLMs will not work well on novel reasoning problems?

You do realize that AI seems magical because text response is converted into actions or tool calls. The AI is deciding the order in which the tools get called to fulfill your prompts. True Intelligence of Type 2 and 3 above needs to formulate, plan, analyse tradeoffs, think critically and solve novel unforeseen problems.

The call flow is: agent -> select skill (ex: reddit) -> execute action in skill -> script or code associated with skill -> get api key -> call reddit -> reddit posts -> agent.

The agent sees the output of the service, it does not directly see the keys. In OpenClaw, it’s possible to create the skill in a way that the agent does not directly know about or use vault_get command.

This can also be done using existing Vaults or Secrets manager. Hashicorp Vault can do this and agents can be instructed to get secrets, which are set without the agent's knowledge. I use these 2 simple scripts with OpenClaw to achieve this, along with time-scoped expiration. The call to vault_get.sh is inside the agent's skill script so that the secrets are not leaked to LLMs or in any trace logs:

vault_get.sh: https://gist.github.com/sathish316/1ca3fe1b124577d1354ee254a...

vault_set.sh: https://gist.github.com/sathish316/1f4e6549a8f85ac5c5ac8a088...

Blog about the full setup for OpenClaw: https://x.com/sathish316/status/2019496552419717390

ROFL

It’ll be disappointing if Moltbook is somehow connected to the Metaverse or represents the best of what Metaverse at Facebook could ever be.