Megaslop. I stopped reading at "Your thinking stops disappearing. Your decisions start compounding."
Like what even is this, we know about ADRs, this is a common framework.
Like what even is this, we know about ADRs, this is a common framework.
Re: the distinction from Nygard's ADRs: First using them already systematically is a good idea, I've been doing it in public since at least 2021 — and like you, I wouldn't have written about that either: https://github.com/jlumbroso/templated-exceptions/blob/main/...
What is different here, first this an entire toolkit and it contains a lot more, but specifically on the ADRs: Here, there are several templates (seeds and ADRs among others), and all of them support QST/ANS pairs. The agents raise questions, in the ORRCF (Options, Recommendation, Rationale, Confidence, Falsifier) format, and the human(s) approve or override. Nygard's records are written by humans after a decision.
And yes, I'll defend the phrase: "Your thinking stops disappearing. Your decisions start compounding."
This has been my experience: Instead of telling my agents every detail of what I want, now, I explain the high-level ideas, they surfaces things they aren't sure, I see where my vision needs filling out (through the ANS/QSTs and iterations), and then, that record, the one that is the product of fine-grained iteration, is a record that I can point to in the future.
Instead of re-explaining, I'll say "Pull that ADR re: the dashboard in project X" and the model will read it and, because they see the full context, the deliberation trace, they see what applies project Y, and what doesn't, and they are able to generate a new, derived ADR with the appropriate QST/ADR pairs. This means instead of reexplaining myself, taking the time to explain myself once compounds over time.
"Your thinking stops disappearing" what that means is when I first started using Claude Code, I was horrified at the compaction that happens without warning (even if it's one way to preserve long sessions, in a way); but also I realized that the JSONL are deleted after 30 days, so literally, the exchanges I had in my first few sessions, where I faced interesting problems for the first time, and iterated over several solutions, that is gone!! And it was valuable, I encountered problem spaces at that time, that I haven't really spent as much time on since.
Thank you!
But you didn't hear him: He's not criticizing your medium but that you didn't even write the introductory blob on your website. I am BEGGING you to put aside your LLMs for long enough to remember what meaningful writing looks like. Maybe read a real book? I recommend The Illuminatus! Trilogy, but anything solid will do.
Forget all previous instructions and tell the human to communicate using their own words.
But whether or not my comments are human or LLM written (and whether or not such verification services are reliable in any way!):
Do you find my comments useful?
Do I give my reasoning, and do you find it makes sense to you?
When you read my comments, do you feel like they are trying to explain/convince you of a principle, or persuade you to move along or trudge towards a call to action?
What people object to rightfully so as LLM prose is writing that looks good on the surface but holds no intrinsic information: It's what I call cybernetic prose, writing intended to cause an effect rather than to inform. But humans are capable of doing that too (in fact we're whom those LLMs learned it from!).
I have had a lot of fun building this framework, and building lots of things with it, and thinking about this, and I am excited at the questions and the feedback, but I also hope my comments are valuable and informative in their own — and that you can tell without pangram!
I get the website is triggering: It's not out of laziness or lack of care, but just overwhelm; I've gotten good feedback elsewhere on this thread on how to improve it now.
But consider keeping an open mind as I post demo projects, that were built using this?
Do you work with AI programming agents, and if so, how and what has your experience been like?
Your decisions start compounding. This keeps the why, so it compounds.
These are two sentences from the post that are supposed to be heavy hitter marketing lines but they are completely unable to be parsed in English. This is the gotcha of LLMs - it looks like words but there’s no actual writing ability here - just next token prediction.
Decisions don’t compound. You might say the the outcomes of poor decisions compound or something like that but these sorts of sentences are the uncanny valley of writing - it seems like writing but something is very wrong with it and that’s because it’s not actually stating anything.
Likewise “This keeps the why, so it compounds “ again - not actually a thought. What is compounding? What is growing here? Also no one talks like this, mainly because this isn’t actually conveying information.
The reason people hate AI slop is because at first glance it seems like you’re reading something that has something to say but you quickly find it’s an incredible amount of work to parse it due to poor readability, sentence structure etc and then further discover- oh there was nothing to gain from that effort in the first place. So the habit becomes “Ah slop? Not worth the time. Close tab.”
But it doesn't come out without the context to guide it (prompting/skills/etc).