cadamsdotcom

6 ms·

1.
by cadamsdotcom 4d ago
Yep. Having to type the code is a form of accidental complexity, and with it gone, you can focus more on the problem to solve, getting it down faster. Of course it's possible for it to go off the rails. Consider that a wildly swung swo
2.
by cadamsdotcom 6d ago
> no one will actually master their craft. The (new) lack of need to redo solutions to already solved things opens up new craft we've not yet conceived. We shouldn't reimplement solutions and call it self-education; humans have
3.
by cadamsdotcom 7d ago
Anthropic is scarily good at PR, but not quite as good at honesty about its intentions. Adjust what you read accordingly :/
4.
by cadamsdotcom 23d ago
These structures got old and weren't replaced. This is plain old urban decay. Some places let their old stuff decay and get vandalized. Others tear down their old stuff and don't replace it. But some cities - not all - tear down
5.
by cadamsdotcom 24d ago
TUIs are better for typing centric keyboard workflows; GUIs are better for keyboard shortcut centric . Your desire UX will guide you. People don't expect to be primarily typing into a GUI; they expect to occasionally click something
6.
by cadamsdotcom 27d ago
The boundary isn't code vs specs. The boundary is wherever you let go of determinism. If you can deterministically turn specs into the same code every time, congratulations! But all you've done is made a higher level language. LLM
7.
by cadamsdotcom 27d ago
A vanishingly small percentage of the software in the world has failure modes that kill people. To say the analogy you're making is "only partly applicable" would be very generous..
8.
by cadamsdotcom 27d ago
Agreed in principle although I'd say screwing over is strong as this will end up as just a cost of doing business in Australia rather than lead to losses. Every economy should get value for its resources - no country is obligated to se
9.
by cadamsdotcom 27d ago
And yet we admire Fable et al for its persistence. These models were trained on human data, and human nature is to cheat if you think you won't get caught; why is anyone surprised by models cheating? The only fix is better detection an
10.
by cadamsdotcom 27d ago
The better approach is to stop the LLM in its tracks the moment it emits jargon or tortured metaphor and inject a turn that tells it what's expected instead. The joy of watching a dumb AI-ism be sharply corrected by code you wrote mont
11.
by cadamsdotcom 28d ago
Well then be careful of US/UK spelling!
12.
by cadamsdotcom 28d ago
Stoked to soon be able to give these people money. The moment there's a device available I'll be checking closely to see if it meets my requirements. Thanks to everyone who worked so hard to get here.
13.
by cadamsdotcom 28d ago
I'm voting with my wallet. My plan downgrade kicks in next month. Thanks Opus 5 for helping me kick the habit.
14.
by cadamsdotcom 29d ago
Nice data! Tim (author) if you're there: it'd be amazing to see the split of which agents people are using, if you have that data.
15.
by cadamsdotcom 29d ago
Why not rip and replace the parts of the readme then? It's like making a beautiful chocolate praline and shipping it in a shoe.
16.
by cadamsdotcom 29d ago
Why wouldn't you use parameterized tests or compose your setup out of fixtures that run the shared setup code? Running a test, then running it a second time, then asserting something else.. is just weird.
17.
by cadamsdotcom 29d ago
Can we please state the measuring system in use. 4F is not enough to rise above a noise floor; 4C is getting close.
18.
by cadamsdotcom 29d ago
What a breath of fresh air. If 2026's Anthropic did an announcement like that, it'd be so many words it'd crash the browser.
19.
by cadamsdotcom 29d ago
So an LLM can't just read your home page? "we seem to keep shooting ourselves in the foot, and the solution we have invented is bulletproof shoes"
20.
by cadamsdotcom 29d ago
They got a D in "willingness to pay for a certificate for their shopfront"..
21.
by cadamsdotcom 29d ago
Your last paragraph is a valid rebuttal. And I've done what you did in the first 3. But your first 3 paragraphs serve no one but you. My suggestion for your future, if you'll consider it, is to write those first 3 paragraphs (they
22.
by cadamsdotcom 29d ago
> they promise "by a certain time" Better call your AI company for a refund. That my friend was an hallucination and you've been promised no such thing.
23.
by cadamsdotcom 29d ago
The $99/yr part gives me the ick.
24.
by cadamsdotcom 29d ago
Software is a very "spiky domain"; things either work or fail, and there is sharp delineation between and easy verification. Hm. Two orthogonal properties! This sounds like a 2x2 matrix! Let's swap hard/easy around &
25.
by cadamsdotcom 1mo ago
Custom linting is so cheap and easy, why not! > "Please add in this repo, a pre-commit hook in the form of a script that prints all filenames and line numbers on which the hyphenated "open-source" string exists, and if any
26.
by cadamsdotcom 1mo ago
> expensive, in terms of tokens. No amount of tokens can come close to my hourly rate.
27.
by cadamsdotcom 1mo ago
Ungrounded LLM outputs are a bit like your dreams. Without anything to test hypotheses against, stuff can pop in and out of existence and physics is just advice. Ground your LLM. Tests, documentation, give it many ways to run the thing its
28.
by cadamsdotcom 1mo ago
This doesn't align with my experience - but happy to be proven wrong if evidence can be produced. Do you have evidence?
29.
by cadamsdotcom 1mo ago
It's situational and I suspect there are situations where it would and others where it wouldn't. Would depend on the almost infinite variables of how training was done. You'd be right that it'd be likely to switch but wh
30.
by cadamsdotcom 1mo ago
Point taken & let's get back on track. I agree it's incomplete what I wrote; you were right to call it out. When you as an individual are getting tens of thousands of dollars of value from a $100 item and someone says there&#x

More ›