6 ms·

This guy – whose RSS feed I subscribe to – makes a living [0] by being anti-AI. That's fine. Do what you do. But don't read this article as any sort of science

• jubalfh 18d ago
  really scandalous. imagine, getting paid for writing things.
  • jen729w 15d ago
    It seems you missed this part of my very short comment. > That's fine. Do what you do.
• matt_kantor 20d ago
  The science is the source linked in the second paragraph.
  • fnordpiglet 20d ago
    This research is not current, and is based on a flawed premise - generated agents.md are used. There isn’t a hand curated agents.md that has some knowledge passed to it that is withheld then measured against. I think there is overall something here for current Claude which is there appears to be a hierarchy of conformance that breaks progressive disclosure and the utility of skills. It seems to honor the system prompt, user instructions, tool call results, and dead last skills. It applies a large amount of discretion as to whether to honor what skills say in the imperative and progressive disclosure seems to have at best a 20-30% recall. Other models like codex gpt 5.6 seem to be the exact opposite and slavishly adhere to the Agent/skills/plugins, to the point of being wasteful and dangerous. It feels clear there’s a tension being RL’ed around between conformance and skeptical behavior that neither has quite found the balance for yet, and is almost certainly an over constrained problem. I just find it funny Anthropic is the one you can’t trust with your wallet while OpenAI does precisely what you and your harness tell it to. But this “science” and its editorializing are based on flawed techniques, don’t lead to the conclusion let alone the editorialized extrapolation, and are l
• watwut 20d ago
  Why articles of people who make living by being pro-AI never get comments like this?
  • owebmaster 20d ago
    They do but you need to check the dead / flagged comments.
  • zamadatix 19d ago
    Never is a strong take (for an easy to find example, the Bun port posts had a ton of comments about the interests of the author rather than the results), but even if we switch it to a "much less commonly" interpretation of the phrase I'd say most pro AI articles talk about what someone/some group has been doing with it and that's what gets the majority of the skepticism goes. On the other side, most anti-AI articles are about what the author sees, so they they tend to be the focus of the skepticism instead. Still, I agree it doesn't make much sense to only talk about who's writing the content instead of the content. Perhaps, generously, the other comments covered their opinions on fhat part already.
• rpdillon 19d ago
  Yeah, something immediately felt wrong about the entire framing of the article. I work on several projects on the side, and they all have agents files that give the context about what the project is, what the elements of it are, and what things we're typically working on. This allows my initial prompt to reference things that would otherwise not be in the context at all. I mean, they're not magic, they're just some automatic context that's supplied. I feel like the study is trying to say that context with an LLM doesn't matter, which is obviously not a tractable position to hold. The fact that they generated all the agents files instead of curating them with a human is probably part of the problem.
• lawtalkinghuman 18d ago
  Someone having share options in a company means they have skin in the game, which means you can trust their opinions more. Someone betting—sorry, investing in a prediction market—means you can have even more confidence in their convictions. But someone having a Patreon account for people to voluntarily donate money to them means they can't be trusted.