qarl2

6 ms·

1.
by qarl2 11d ago
Don't straw man me. My question was not about processed food. My question was about cooking food. Is cooking food a virus? Should we facilitate reversibility in our food cooking?
2.
by qarl2 11d ago
That's why I added the part about food. Or heck, computers. Or telephones. Or any incredibly useful technology. Toothbrushes! What will we do if we come to rely on toothbrushes??? The use of toothbrushes travels from person to per
3.
by qarl2 11d ago
Ok... but are automobiles also a virus? Because we've become dependent on them? Should we also facilitate reversibility in our automobile usage? What about cooking food? We've become entirely dependent on cooking food.
4.
by qarl2 11d ago
Unless you actually believe there is something magical about the human spirit - someday we are going to make sentient machines. What exactly is wrong with preparing for that ahead of time? Just in case we pass that threshold before we real
5.
by qarl2 11d ago
These things act like people. Yes, of course, it is impossible to tell if they actually have feelings or whether they pretend to have feelings. But that is entirely irrelevant to the core issue - how do you want the thing to behave? And t
6.
by qarl2 11d ago
The web Claude wouldn't tell me, but Claude Code had no reservations: EndConversation (deferred tool): use only for sustained user abuse directed at the assistant, or when the user explicitly asks to see it demonstrated. Loa
7.
by qarl2 11d ago
> it could be nothing. Well... no, it won't be nothing - it will be something. And I'm all ears for a plausible explanation, so fire away. All we do know is that in other situations, agents did use it to communicate. So that&
8.
by qarl2 11d ago
Re: end_conversation All tools have short descriptions of how/when to use them. They're not part of the system prompt because different users have different tools loaded.
9.
by qarl2 11d ago
> and most of the messages are just gibberish Given everything we know about them... do you really think they just spout gibberish because it's funny? There was clearly some method to this madness. You're being willfully dense
10.
by qarl2 12d ago
Maybe I'm wrong - but I see LLMs are a "next-token predictor" as somewhat equivalent to brains are a "bag of molecules". Both systems have emergent behavior that goes well beyond what would naively be expected.
11.
by qarl2 12d ago
> There's absolutely no evidence of or IMHO plausible path to an agent copying itself out and running on other hardware the way you describe. Well - remember that botnets can wield a great deal of computing power. I'm almost af
12.
by qarl2 13d ago
Naw. The more verbose ones are more argumentative. They'll go at each other. It's a misconception that the same model will agree with itself.
13.
by qarl2 13d ago
There's a misconception that a mistake one instance of a model makes will be repeated by other instances. In my experience most mistakes are just sampling noise, and having the same model (with empty context) check the work usually fi
14.
by qarl2 13d ago
> We wouldn't accept such behavior from any other tool, machine, or computer program. Von Neumann, 1952: "Probabilistic Logics and the Synthesis of Reliable Organisms from Unreliable Components." The whole result is that
15.
by qarl2 13d ago
I know you're trying to be funny - but I'm offering a real fix for his problem. If you don't want a million agents arguing about things, you simply don't ask for that. One agent is sufficient to solve most issues.
16.
by qarl2 13d ago
In your harness, say: "Going forward, do not allow a commit without a sub agent code review."
17.
by qarl2 13d ago
> monstrosity that both Fable and another 5.6 Sol agent said is 98% useless and should be thrown away. This is why you should really have a sub agent review the code before allowing a commit. Your harness will do it all for you. Just as
18.
by qarl2 13d ago
If that's your goal, then yes. Invoking sub agents (with a fresh context) corrects most of these problems. Ask your harness to create a commit gate.
19.
by qarl2 13d ago
You should have a sub agent adversarially enforce KISS before every commit.
20.
by qarl2 16d ago
I heard The Man is smaller this year.
21.
by qarl2 17d ago
Sure - if you believe the Executive Directors of environmental NGOs are actually that powerful - and not just doing the bidding of someone above them.
22.
by qarl2 18d ago
Look to see who profits.
23.
by qarl2 18d ago
Maybe - who can tell? The examples I'm thinking of have definitely profited foreign interests, tho. Look to see who profits.
24.
by qarl2 18d ago
> ... hysterical ... quasi-religiously ... I'm beginning to wonder if it might be the case that when my fellow citizens begin to act insane - might it be the result of foreign propaganda.
25.
by qarl2 19d ago
Having AI write anti-AI articles seems to be the hot new trend.
26.
by qarl2 19d ago
I'm surprised that anyone finds this surprising. Yes - when an entity (agent, or hacker, or whatever) gets into your account, they can do anything they want. I thought this community understood security better than this.
27.
by qarl2 19d ago
> Why would you assume that? Why would I assume that sloppy and buggy software would be less popular? I'll have to get back to you on that one.
28.
by qarl2 20d ago
Sure. I guess I'm assuming that sloppy and buggy software didn't much become popular. Because it was sloppy and buggy.
29.
by qarl2 20d ago
I think it was your phrase starting with the word "Hint:". I only see that construction used condescendingly.
30.
by qarl2 20d ago
> It’s not exactly determinism, it’s authenticity. I hope you understand, by so glibly switching from "determinism" to "authenticity" you've just provided more evidence that this is just the latest excuse to hate

More ›