causal

I think there are a lot of people who (naively) believe AI is going to lead to abundance for everyone. I think there are very rich people trying to sell that vision.

I think most of us know that even if AI could do all of our jobs, it won't be to give us free products and services.

Probably but how do you adapt to something that changes faster than semesters. Revising your theory of learning, implementing, evaluating results, etc. takes years, not weeks.

Eh it's not very charitable; he's an enthusiast but that's not the same as believing there are no downsides.

At most I've seen him overhype some stuff, but probably less than most in the the tech-influencer sphere.

*Until GPT-6 comes out, at which point Mythos will coincidentally be sufficiently safety-tested to release :)

There is a massive disconnect between what Americans experience in their day to day vs what they will support happening abroad. We are so completely insulated that we can have something like this happening and still not be shocked by the implications because the likely near-term consequence is just "shucks $5 a gallon".

"we’re going to have a leaderboard of who used the most"

Yeah I've seen stuff like that and it's a bit bewildering for me. Feels a bit like AWS is new and we're competing to see who can deploy the most EC2 instances.

I switched from Cursor to Claude because the limits are so much higher but I see Anthropic playing a lot more games to limit token use

Their whole business model seems built around selling you limits that you will never be able to utilize: limit you to tools that will never run long.

Claude Code seems designed to terminate quickly- mine always finds excuses to declare victory prematurely given a task that should take hours.

These examples are contrived af.

Nobody uses markdown like that bro. We like markdown because it's easy to read both rendered and raw.

Until recently, this was default configuration

Edit: Default binding was to 0.0.0.0, and if you were not aware of this and assumed your router was keeping you safe, you probably should not be using OpenClaw. In fact some services may still default to 0.0.0.0: https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/issues/5263

https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/commit/5643a934799dc523...

Yeah, I tried using their Composer model (which I guess is Kimi) and it just feels sub-Sonnet to me. Whereas a Claude Max sub gets me more Opus than I can use in a month.

Which sucks because Cursor is clearly better than Anthropic at building UIs. CC desktop is buggy af.

Codex is nearly Opus level though. Anyone know if OpenAI permits Max subs to be used in Cursor?

I've never been thrilled with AppRunner but am irritated I have to migrate off of it.

One of the many broken promises of moving to the cloud is not having to do your own maintenance- put it on the cloud and let the professionals handle it!

AWS creates waaaay more work for me than it has ever saved.

A lot of deep sea creatures have very slow metabolisms. It is one of the many reasons sea dredging and mining should be held with such disdain: these are ecosystems which may take thousands of years to recover.

We don't even appreciate how long it takes a forest to recover, much less one with glass sponges that are thousands of years old.

I'm confused, I've been running parallel agents on different worktrees within a single view of Claude Desktop for at least a month. I don't see any new features here?

I'm on a mac! And I still find bugs on a regular basis...

> They work really well in my experience.

Yeahhh strong disagree there, I find Codex and CC to be buggy as hell. Desktop CC is very bad and web version is nigh unusable.

> “BQ 2026-03-10: 1,279 sessions had 50+ consecutive failures (up to 3,272) in a single session, wasting ~250K API calls/day globally.”

That's revealing waaaay more than the agent needs to know.

I'm amazed at how much of what my past employers would call trade secrets are just being shipped in the source. Including comments that just plainly state the whole business backstory of certain decisions. It's like they discarded all release harnesses and project tracking and just YOLO'd everything into the codebase itself.

Edit: Everyone is responding "comments are good" and I can't tell if any of you actually read TFA or not

> “BQ 2026-03-10: 1,279 sessions had 50+ consecutive failures (up to 3,272) in a single session, wasting ~250K API calls/day globally.”

This is just revealing operational details the agent doesn't need to know to set `MAX_CONSECUTIVE_AUTOCOMPACT_FAILURES = 3`

I thought so at first too but I've seen some OpenClaw "blogs" that kind of have this same sort of dramatic pronouncement style with similar heavy sign-posting. Not sure.

Gao appears to have posted on /r/localllama as well: https://www.reddit.com/r/LocalLLaMA/comments/1s7nq6b/technic...

No idea why you're being downvoted. We can't yet even demonstrate that LLMs will withstand training on their own output as they pollute the Internet.

There are numerous governments in any given country, if you consider the various overlapping jurisdictions.

Taleb sees business and government as equally incompetent, but businesses are supposed to die and so make room for better ideas to thrive.

Unless, of course, you bail them out of their mistakes.

Then why deny it a harness it can also use in a human centric world?

The issue is that ARC AGI 3 specifically forbids harnesses that humans get to use.

Well, yes, and would hand even more of an advantage to humans. My point is that designing a test around human advantages seems odd and orthogonal to measuring AGI.

Thanks, I mostly agree with your approach except for one thing: eyesight feels like a "harness" that humans get to use and LLMs do not.

I'm guessing you did not pass the human testers JSON blobs to work with, and suspect they would also score 0% without the eyesight and visual cortex harness to their reasoning ability.

I kind of prefer Credit Card over anything else if I have to do it. I give out my CC pretty regularly already so not much new PII to lose there. But it does sound like Apple has bugs to work out.

I think it's just sarcasm coming from the stereotypical HN attitude that Product Managers only get in the way of the real work of engineering. Ignore it; they're basically proving your point.

I'm an engineer and I totally agree. Engineers + LLMs exacerbate the timeless problem of not understanding the reality behind the problem. Validating solutions against reality is hard and LLMs just hallucinate their way around unknowns.

You need to change the title or actually include 1T parameter model content.